On 11/15/18 3:46 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 03:12:48PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/15/18 3:06 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/18 12:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/18 12:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:29:04PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/18 12:11 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:12:44AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the below patch should fix it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I spoke too early. sparc64, next-20181115:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ 14.204370] nvme nvme0: pci function 0000:02:00.0
>>>>>>>> [ 14.249956] nvme nvme0: Removing after probe failure status: -5
>>>>>>>> [ 14.263496] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>>>>> [ 14.263913] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 15 at kernel/irq/manage.c:1597
>>>>>>>> __free_irq+0xa4/0x320
>>>>>>>> [ 14.264265] Trying to free already-free IRQ 9
>>>>>>>> [ 14.264519] Modules linked in:
>>>>>>>> [ 14.264961] CPU: 0 PID: 15 Comm: kworker/u2:1 Not tainted
>>>>>>>> 4.20.0-rc2-next-20181115 #1
>>>>>>>> [ 14.265555] Workqueue: nvme-reset-wq nvme_reset_work
>>>>>>>> [ 14.265899] Call Trace:
>>>>>>>> [ 14.266118] [000000000046944c] __warn+0xcc/0x100
>>>>>>>> [ 14.266375] [00000000004694b0] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x30/0x40
>>>>>>>> [ 14.266635] [00000000004d4ce4] __free_irq+0xa4/0x320
>>>>>>>> [ 14.266867] [00000000004d4ff8] free_irq+0x38/0x80
>>>>>>>> [ 14.267092] [00000000007b1874] pci_free_irq+0x14/0x40
>>>>>>>> [ 14.267327] [00000000008a5444] nvme_dev_disable+0xe4/0x520
>>>>>>>> [ 14.267576] [00000000008a69b8] nvme_reset_work+0x138/0x1c60
>>>>>>>> [ 14.267827] [0000000000488dd0] process_one_work+0x230/0x6e0
>>>>>>>> [ 14.268079] [00000000004894f4] worker_thread+0x274/0x520
>>>>>>>> [ 14.268321] [0000000000490624] kthread+0xe4/0x120
>>>>>>>> [ 14.268544] [00000000004060c4] ret_from_fork+0x1c/0x2c
>>>>>>>> [ 14.268825] [0000000000000000] (null)
>>>>>>>> [ 14.269089] irq event stamp: 32796
>>>>>>>> [ 14.269350] hardirqs last enabled at (32795): [<0000000000b624a4>]
>>>>>>>> _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x24/0x80
>>>>>>>> [ 14.269757] hardirqs last disabled at (32796): [<0000000000b622f4>]
>>>>>>>> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x14/0x60
>>>>>>>> [ 14.270566] softirqs last enabled at (32780): [<0000000000b64c18>]
>>>>>>>> __do_softirq+0x238/0x520
>>>>>>>> [ 14.271206] softirqs last disabled at (32729): [<000000000042ceec>]
>>>>>>>> do_softirq_own_stack+0x2c/0x40
>>>>>>>> [ 14.272288] ---[ end trace cb79ccd2a0a03f3c ]---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like an error during probe followed by an error cleanup problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did it previous probe fine? Or is the new thing just the fact that
>>>>>>> we spew a warning on trying to free a non-existing vector?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This works fine in mainline, if that is your question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, as soon as I sent the other email I realized that. Let me send
>>>>> you a quick patch.
>>>>
>>>> How's this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
>>>> index ffbab5b01df4..fd73bfd2d1be 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
>>>> @@ -2088,15 +2088,11 @@ static int nvme_setup_irqs(struct nvme_dev *dev,
>>>> int nr_io_queues)
>>>> affd.nr_sets = 1;
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> - * Need IRQs for read+write queues, and one for the admin queue.
>>>> - * If we can't get more than one vector, we have to share the
>>>> - * admin queue and IO queue vector. For that case, don't add
>>>> - * an extra vector for the admin queue, or we'll continue
>>>> - * asking for 2 and get -ENOSPC in return.
>>>> + * If we got a failure and we're down to asking for just
>>>> + * 1 + 1 queues, just ask for a single vector. We'll share
>>>> + * that between the single IO queue and the admin queue.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (result == -ENOSPC && nr_io_queues == 1)
>>>> - nr_io_queues = 1;
>>>> - else
>>>> + if (!(result < 0 && nr_io_queues == 1))
>>>> nr_io_queues = irq_sets[0] + irq_sets[1] + 1;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the code doesn't even get here because the call of
>>> pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity in the first iteration fails with
>>> -EINVAL, which results in an immediate return with -EIO.
>>
>> Oh yeah... How about this then?
>>
> Yes, this one works (at least on sparc64). Do I need to test
> on other architectures as well ?
Should be fine, hopefully... Thanks for testing!
>> @@ -2111,6 +2107,9 @@ static int nvme_setup_irqs(struct nvme_dev *dev, int
>> nr_io_queues)
>> if (!nr_io_queues)
>> return result;
>> continue;
>> + } else if (result == -EINVAL) {
>
> Add an explanation, maybe ?
Yeah, I'll add a proper comment, this was just for testing.
--
Jens Axboe
