1. Aug 08, 2018
    • zhong jiang's avatar
      drivers/block/aoe/aoedev: NULL check is not needed for mempool_destroy · 69daf897
      zhong jiang authored
      
      
      mempool_destroy has taken the null pointer into account. So it is safe
      to remove the null check.
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarzhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
      69daf897
    • zhong jiang's avatar
      drivers/block/mtip32xx: remove the null check for debugfs_remove_recursive · d5fcc4e4
      zhong jiang authored
      
      
      debugfs_remove_recursive has taken null pointer into account. So it is
      safe to drop the null check before calling the function.
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarzhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
      d5fcc4e4
    • Bart Van Assche's avatar
      cfq: Suppress compiler warnings about comparisons · f7ecb1b1
      Bart Van Assche authored
      This patch does not change any functionality but avoids that gcc
      reports the following warnings when building with W=1:
      
      block/cfq-iosched.c: In function ?cfq_back_seek_max_store?:
      block/cfq-iosched.c:4741:13: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits]
        if (__data < (MIN))      \
                   ^
      block/cfq-iosched.c:4756:1: note: in expansion of macro ?STORE_FUNCTION?
       STORE_FUNCTION(cfq_back_seek_max_store, &cfqd->cfq_back_max, 0, UINT_MAX, 0);
       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      block/cfq-iosched.c: In function ?cfq_slice_idle_store?:
      block/cfq-iosched.c:4741:13: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits]
        if (__data < (MIN))      \
                   ^
      block/cfq-iosched.c:4759:1: note: in expansion of macro ?STORE_FUNCTION?
       STORE_FUNCTION(cfq_slice_idle_store, &cfqd->cfq_slice_idle, 0, UINT_MAX, 1);
       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      block/cfq-iosched.c: In function ?cfq_group_idle_store?:
      block/cfq-iosched.c:4741:13: warning...
      f7ecb1b1
    • Bart Van Assche's avatar
      cfq: Annotate fall-through in a switch statement · 9b4f4346
      Bart Van Assche authored
      
      
      This patch avoids that gcc complains about fall-through when building
      with W=1.
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarBart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
      9b4f4346
    • Anchal Agarwal's avatar
      blk-wbt: Avoid lock contention and thundering herd issue in wbt_wait · 2887e41b
      Anchal Agarwal authored
      I am currently running a large bare metal instance (i3.metal)
      on EC2 with 72 cores, 512GB of RAM and NVME drives, with a
      4.18 kernel. I have a workload that simulates a database
      workload and I am running into lockup issues when writeback
      throttling is enabled,with the hung task detector also
      kicking in.
      
      Crash dumps show that most CPUs (up to 50 of them) are
      all trying to get the wbt wait queue lock while trying to add
      themselves to it in __wbt_wait (see stack traces below).
      
      [    0.948118] CPU: 45 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/45 Not tainted 4.14.51-62.38.amzn1.x86_64 #1
      [    0.948119] Hardware name: Amazon EC2 i3.metal/Not Specified, BIOS 1.0 10/16/2017
      [    0.948120] task: ffff883f7878c000 task.stack: ffffc9000c69c000
      [    0.948124] RIP: 0010:native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0xf8/0x1a0
      [    0.948125] RSP: 0018:ffff883f7fcc3dc8 EFLAGS: 00000046
      [    0.948126] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff887f7709ca68 RCX: ffff883f7fce2a00
      [    0.948128] RDX: ...
      2887e41b
  2. Aug 07, 2018
  3. Aug 06, 2018
  4. Aug 03, 2018
  5. Aug 02, 2018
  6. Aug 01, 2018
  7. Jul 31, 2018
  8. Jul 30, 2018
  9. Jul 28, 2018