Re: "blocked for more than 120 secs" --> a valid situation, how to prevent?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10-09-23 10:53 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 10-09-23 08:05 PM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
Mark,
If you issued the SG_IO ioctl with a timeout of at
least 66 minutes (expressed in milliseconds) then
it looks like ata_scsi_queuecmd() has a problem.
..

Mmm.. more like blk_execute_rq() perhaps.
That's where the wait_for_completion(&wait) call is at.

Perhaps I should change it to wait in smaller increments,
so that the lockup detection doesn't trigger on it..
..

This patch (below) seems to work.

Does this look kosher enough for me to roll it up
as a proper patch submission?   Jens?  Joel?

The problem, again, is that the hangcheck timer fires
inappropriately during very long SG_IO commands,
such as --security-erase operations which take minutes/hours to complete.

Thanks

--- old/block/blk-exec.c	2010-08-26 19:47:12.000000000 -0400
+++ linux/block/blk-exec.c	2010-09-23 23:41:47.478826002 -0400
@@ -95,7 +95,8 @@
rq->end_io_data = &wait;
 	blk_execute_rq_nowait(q, bd_disk, rq, at_head, blk_end_sync_rq);
-	wait_for_completion(&wait);
+	while (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&wait, (sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs >> 1) * HZ))
+		; /* periodic wakeup prevents "hung_task" warnings */
if (rq->errors)
 		err = -EIO;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux