| Message ID | 4C9C2039.8050903@teksavvy.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On 2010-09-24 05:51, Mark Lord wrote: > 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? Ideally it would be nice to just pass the info down that it should not complain, since waiting > 120 seconds (or whatever the timeout is set to) is expected by the caller in some cases. But your patch is simple enough and it gets the job done. I will queue it up for .37 if you send a properly formatted and signed-off-by version.
--- 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;