On 2 April 2018 at 21:29, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello, Sitsofe.
>
> Can you see whether the following patch makes any difference?
>
> Thanks.
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-timeout.c b/block/blk-timeout.c
> index a05e367..f0e6e41 100644
> --- a/block/blk-timeout.c
> +++ b/block/blk-timeout.c
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ void blk_abort_request(struct request *req)
> * No need for fancy synchronizations.
> */
> blk_rq_set_deadline(req, jiffies);
> - mod_timer(&req->q->timeout, 0);
> + kblockd_schedule_work(&req->q->timeout_work);
> } else {
> if (blk_mark_rq_complete(req))
> return;
Just out of interest, does the fact that an abort occurs mean that the
hardware is somehow broken or badly behaved?
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
