On 11/06/2013 06:23 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > On 11/05/2013 10:48 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 11/05/2013 08:19 PM, Mike Christie wrote: >>> On 11/04/2013 11:05 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>>> + >>>> + scmd->eh_eflags |= SCSI_EH_ABORT_SCHEDULED; >>>> + SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3, >>>> + scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, scmd, >>>> + "scmd %p abort scheduled\n", scmd)); >>>> + schedule_delayed_work(&scmd->abort_work, HZ / 100); >>>> + return SUCCESS; >>>> +} >>> >>> Do we want to use our own workqueue_struct with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM set? >>> >> Errm. Yes, why? >> >> I must admit I'm not _that_ familiar with workqueues ... >> Care to explain? >> > > We all share the above workqueue_structs pool of threads, so if we get > stuck behind code doing GFP_KERNEL allocs that end up needing to write > data to the disk we are now trying to aborts on, then we could get > stuck. With WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, we have our own backup thread that gets > created at workqueue_struct create time which can get used in cases like > that so we can always make forward progress. > Ah. Right. Yes, that makes sense. I guess I'll have to redo the patches _yet again_. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- 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
