On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 05:22:25 +0000 Dan Williams <djbw@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 11/18/12 5:06 PM, "NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >Hi Dan, > > could you comment on this please? Would it make sense to arrange for > >errors > > to propagate up? Or should we arrange to do a software-fallback in the > >dma > > engine is a problem? What sort of things can cause error here anyway? > > Propagating up is missing reliable "dma abort" operation. > > In these cases the engine failed to complete due to hardware hang / driver > bug, or has hit a memory error (uncorrectable even with software > fallback). This originally should have been using async_tx_quiesce() > which also does the panic. > > The engines that I have worked with have either lacked support for > aborting, or were otherwise unable to recover from a hardware hang. > However, for engines that do support error recovery they should be able to > hide the failure from the upper layers. > So maybe I could: diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c index ac09fa4..ffbf0ca 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c @@ -3268,7 +3268,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh) /* done submitting copies, wait for them to complete */ if (tx) { async_tx_ack(tx); - dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); + async_tx_quiesce(&tx); } } and then the panic would be somebody else's problem? I note that handle_stripe_expansion has: async_tx_ack(tx); dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); while async_tx_quiesce() has: if (dma_wait_for_async_tx(*tx) == DMA_ERROR) panic("DMA_ERROR waiting for transaction\n"); async_tx_ack(*tx); i.e. the same two functions called in the reverse order. Is the order important? Is handle_stripe_expansion wrong? Should the patch I apply actually be: diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c index ac09fa4..e51d903 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c @@ -3266,10 +3266,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh) } /* done submitting copies, wait for them to complete */ - if (tx) { - async_tx_ack(tx); - dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); - } + async_tx_quiesce(&tx); } /* because async_tx_quiesce() does the NULL test too??? Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature