Hi Bart,
On 1/29/19, 2:30 PM, "Giridhar Malavali" <gmalavali@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/25/19, 7:55 AM, "linux-scsi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Bart Van Assche" <linux-scsi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote:
External Email
On Thu, 2019-01-24 at 23:23 -0800, Himanshu Madhani wrote:
> From: Giridhar Malavali <gmalavali@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch fixes SRB allocation flag from GFP_KERNEL to GFP_ATOMIC, to
> prevent sleeping in IRQ context
>
> Signed-off-by: Giridhar Malavali <gmalavali@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Himanshu Madhani <hmadhani@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
> index aa72e8316533..3bb4fa97e40a 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
> @@ -1829,7 +1829,7 @@ qla24xx_async_abort_cmd(srb_t *cmd_sp, bool wait)
> int rval = QLA_FUNCTION_FAILED;
>
> sp = qla2xxx_get_qpair_sp(cmd_sp->vha, cmd_sp->qpair, cmd_sp->fcport,
> - GFP_KERNEL);
> + GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!sp)
> goto done;
Is this change necessary because this function can be called from inside a
timer callback function? Is that callback function qla2x00_sp_timeout()?
If so, have you considered to modify that function such that it schedules
the work it has to do? Would that be sufficient to avoid that GFP_KERNEL
has to be changed into GFP_ATOMIC in qla24xx_async_abort_cmd()?
yes, qla2x00_sp_timeout() is the function. Considering that this happens very rare I did not consider scheduling this further.
Thanks,
Bart.
Let us know if there are any other comments?
Thanks,
Himanshu
