2009/9/6 OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 2009/9/5 OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> 2009/9/4 OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Note that when you rever this patch on a current kernel you do actually >>>>>> get different behvaviour than when going back to before this commit. >>>>>> >>>>>> In 2.6.30 we called ->write_super in the various sync functions and >>>>>> then ->sync_fs, in 2.6.31-rc8 you would not call any syncing at all >>>>>> anymore. I think this patch might just be a symptom for a situation >>>>>> where the suspend code causes a sync and the mmc driver can't handle >>>>>> it anymore. >>>> >>>> So - here is the console trace from suspend when I've added >>>> dump_stack() to the fat_sync_fs() (and also added debug prints >>>> around each call in this function -so its obvious the function is >>>> actually left - but then it freezes later somewhere.) >>>> >>>> It's interesting that 3 calls to sync happens. >>> >>> It seems >>> >>> 1) sync() (probabry "sync" command) >>> 2) sync as part of suspend sequence >>> 3) sync_filesystem() by mmc remove event >>> >>> I guess the root-cause of the problem would be 3). However, it would not >>> be easy to fix, at least, we would need to think about what we want to >>> do for it. So, to workaround it for now, I've made this patch. >>> >>> Can you try whether this patch fixes this problem? >>> >> >> So I've tested your patch - it seems to fix the problem in suspend - >> the machine sleeps - however after resume the mmc SD card becomes >> unusable to the system and appended call trace filled my message log >> very quickly: >> >> After reboot the filesystem appeared to be usable again without errors. > > Thanks for testing. "logical block size: 27499" is wrong value > completely. Of course, fatfs is assuming the blocksize is not changed. > (mmc wasn't resumed correctly?) > > Well, this problem seems to be completely different problem, and it > seems the problem of suspend or mmc (or block?) stuff, or something. > > It would need to be analyzed by those people. > > Meanwhile, I'll apply this patch to workaround suspend problem and to > remove unneeded write for next window. > > Thanks. > >> Call Trace: >> [<ffffffff81134f6b>] __getblk+0x2cb/0x300 >> [<ffffffff813dcb58>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x38/0x80 >> [<ffffffff81135122>] __breadahead+0x12/0x40 >> [<ffffffffa0520cb7>] fat_count_free_clusters+0x307/0x320 [fat] >> [<ffffffff81103a58>] ? check_object+0xd8/0x260 >> [<ffffffff8107d83d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 >> [<ffffffffa0522d55>] fat_statfs+0xf5/0x110 [fat] >> [<ffffffff8110be5c>] vfs_statfs+0x7c/0xa0 >> [<ffffffff8110c0b0>] vfs_statfs_native+0x20/0xb0 >> [<ffffffff8110c243>] sys_statfs+0x73/0xb0 >> [<ffffffff8122ab2b>] ? __up_write+0xcb/0x120 >> [<ffffffff8100c18c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62 >> [<ffffffff8109eb8b>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x28b/0x2b0 >> [<ffffffff8107d7ed>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x15d/0x1a0 >> [<ffffffff813dbf1e>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f >> [<ffffffff8100c15b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b >> getblk(): invalid block size 512 requested >> logical block size: 27499 >> >> [<ffffffff81135122>] __breadahead+0x12/0x40 >> [<ffffffffa0520cb7>] fat_count_free_clusters+0x307/0x320 [fat] >> [<ffffffff81103a58>] ? check_object+0xd8/0x260 >> [<ffffffff8107d83d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 >> [<ffffffffa0522d55>] fat_statfs+0xf5/0x110 [fat] >> [<ffffffff8110be5c>] vfs_statfs+0x7c/0xa0 >> [<ffffffff8110c0b0>] vfs_statfs_native+0x20/0xb0 >> [<ffffffff8110c243>] sys_statfs+0x73/0xb0 >> [<ffffffff8122ab2b>] ? __up_write+0xcb/0x120 >> [<ffffffff8100c18c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62 >> [<ffffffff8109eb8b>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x28b/0x2b0 >> [<ffffffff8107d7ed>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x15d/0x1a0 >> [<ffffffff813dbf1e>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f >> [<ffffffff8100c15b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > -- > OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Just a side note - Could be there any connection with my previous report? http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/28/90 Zdenek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
