Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "blk_mq_map_request".
2014 Sep 11
3
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...;000000000010bc08>] do_IRQ+0x64/0x84
[ 66.437533] [<000000000067ccd8>] ext_skip+0x42/0x46
[ 66.437541] [<00000000003ed7b4>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x58/0x1e8
[ 66.437544] ([<00000000003ed788>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x2c/0x1e8)
[ 66.437547] [<00000000003eef82>] blk_mq_map_request+0xc2/0x208
[ 66.437549] [<00000000003ef860>] blk_sq_make_request+0xac/0x350
[ 66.437721] [<00000000003e2d6c>] generic_make_request+0xc4/0xfc
[ 66.437723] [<00000000003e2e56>] submit_bio+0xb2/0x1a8
[ 66.438373] [<000000000031e8aa>] ext4_io_submit+0x52/0x80
[ 66....
2014 Sep 11
3
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...;000000000010bc08>] do_IRQ+0x64/0x84
[ 66.437533] [<000000000067ccd8>] ext_skip+0x42/0x46
[ 66.437541] [<00000000003ed7b4>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x58/0x1e8
[ 66.437544] ([<00000000003ed788>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x2c/0x1e8)
[ 66.437547] [<00000000003eef82>] blk_mq_map_request+0xc2/0x208
[ 66.437549] [<00000000003ef860>] blk_sq_make_request+0xac/0x350
[ 66.437721] [<00000000003e2d6c>] generic_make_request+0xc4/0xfc
[ 66.437723] [<00000000003e2e56>] submit_bio+0xb2/0x1a8
[ 66.438373] [<000000000031e8aa>] ext4_io_submit+0x52/0x80
[ 66....
2014 Sep 12
3
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...x84
>> [ 66.437533] [<000000000067ccd8>] ext_skip+0x42/0x46
>> [ 66.437541] [<00000000003ed7b4>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x58/0x1e8
>> [ 66.437544] ([<00000000003ed788>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x2c/0x1e8)
>> [ 66.437547] [<00000000003eef82>] blk_mq_map_request+0xc2/0x208
>> [ 66.437549] [<00000000003ef860>] blk_sq_make_request+0xac/0x350
>> [ 66.437721] [<00000000003e2d6c>] generic_make_request+0xc4/0xfc
>> [ 66.437723] [<00000000003e2e56>] submit_bio+0xb2/0x1a8
>> [ 66.438373] [<000000000031e8aa&g...
2014 Sep 12
3
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...x84
>> [ 66.437533] [<000000000067ccd8>] ext_skip+0x42/0x46
>> [ 66.437541] [<00000000003ed7b4>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x58/0x1e8
>> [ 66.437544] ([<00000000003ed788>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x2c/0x1e8)
>> [ 66.437547] [<00000000003eef82>] blk_mq_map_request+0xc2/0x208
>> [ 66.437549] [<00000000003ef860>] blk_sq_make_request+0xac/0x350
>> [ 66.437721] [<00000000003e2d6c>] generic_make_request+0xc4/0xfc
>> [ 66.437723] [<00000000003e2e56>] submit_bio+0xb2/0x1a8
>> [ 66.438373] [<000000000031e8aa&g...
2014 Sep 17
3
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...t;>
> >> That is very weird, the 'rq' is got from hctx->tags, and rq should be
> >> valid, and rq->q shouldn't have been changed even though it was
> >> double free or double allocation.
> >>
> >>> I am currently asking myself if blk_mq_map_request should protect against softirq here but I cant say for sure,as I have never looked into that code before.
> >>
> >> No, it needn't the protection.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &...
2014 Sep 17
3
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...t;>
> >> That is very weird, the 'rq' is got from hctx->tags, and rq should be
> >> valid, and rq->q shouldn't have been changed even though it was
> >> double free or double allocation.
> >>
> >>> I am currently asking myself if blk_mq_map_request should protect against softirq here but I cant say for sure,as I have never looked into that code before.
> >>
> >> No, it needn't the protection.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &...
2014 Sep 12
0
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...;] do_IRQ+0x64/0x84
> [ 66.437533] [<000000000067ccd8>] ext_skip+0x42/0x46
> [ 66.437541] [<00000000003ed7b4>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x58/0x1e8
> [ 66.437544] ([<00000000003ed788>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x2c/0x1e8)
> [ 66.437547] [<00000000003eef82>] blk_mq_map_request+0xc2/0x208
> [ 66.437549] [<00000000003ef860>] blk_sq_make_request+0xac/0x350
> [ 66.437721] [<00000000003e2d6c>] generic_make_request+0xc4/0xfc
> [ 66.437723] [<00000000003e2e56>] submit_bio+0xb2/0x1a8
> [ 66.438373] [<000000000031e8aa>] ext4_io_subm...
2014 Sep 17
0
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...[ 66.437533] [<000000000067ccd8>] ext_skip+0x42/0x46
>>> [ 66.437541] [<00000000003ed7b4>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x58/0x1e8
>>> [ 66.437544] ([<00000000003ed788>] __blk_mq_alloc_request+0x2c/0x1e8)
>>> [ 66.437547] [<00000000003eef82>] blk_mq_map_request+0xc2/0x208
>>> [ 66.437549] [<00000000003ef860>] blk_sq_make_request+0xac/0x350
>>> [ 66.437721] [<00000000003e2d6c>] generic_make_request+0xc4/0xfc
>>> [ 66.437723] [<00000000003e2e56>] submit_bio+0xb2/0x1a8
>>> [ 66.438373] [<00...
2014 Sep 17
0
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...That is very weird, the 'rq' is got from hctx->tags, and rq should be
> > >> valid, and rq->q shouldn't have been changed even though it was
> > >> double free or double allocation.
> > >>
> > >>> I am currently asking myself if blk_mq_map_request should protect against softirq here but I cant say for sure,as I have never looked into that code before.
> > >>
> > >> No, it needn't the protection.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > To uns...
2014 Sep 17
2
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...very weird, the 'rq' is got from hctx->tags, and rq should be
>>>>> valid, and rq->q shouldn't have been changed even though it was
>>>>> double free or double allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am currently asking myself if blk_mq_map_request should protect against softirq here but I cant say for sure,as I have never looked into that code before.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it needn't the protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>...
2014 Sep 17
2
blk-mq crash under KVM in multiqueue block code (with virtio-blk and ext4)
...very weird, the 'rq' is got from hctx->tags, and rq should be
>>>>> valid, and rq->q shouldn't have been changed even though it was
>>>>> double free or double allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am currently asking myself if blk_mq_map_request should protect against softirq here but I cant say for sure,as I have never looked into that code before.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it needn't the protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>...