From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@internode.on.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net>,
USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: CPU lock-ups with 4.12.0+ kernels related to usb_storage
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:52:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170712165200.GA29145@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1707121152211.2118-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:10:02PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> This is pretty conclusive. The problem comes about because
> usb_stor_control_thread() calls scsi_mq_done() while holding
> shost->host_lock, and then scsi_eh_scmd_add() tries to acquire that
> same lock.
>
> I don't know why this didn't show up in earlier kernels. I guess some
> element of the call chain listed above must be new in 4.12.
>
> Christoph, what's the best way to fix this? Should usb-storage release
> the host lock before issuing the ->scsi_done callback? If so, does
> that change need to be applied to any kernels before 4.12?
4.12 switched to blk-mq by default, and while the old code used
a softirq for completions, which is always a difference context
the blk-mq code might execute in the same context it's called in.
So yes, for that we'd need to drop host_lock. But I wonder how
many more of these are lingering somewhere and if we can find
another workaround.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-12 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <2b6dc4b0-71c8-28cb-383d-c01a9e896c7a@internode.on.net>
2017-07-12 16:10 ` CPU lock-ups with 4.12.0+ kernels related to usb_storage Alan Stern
2017-07-12 16:52 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2017-07-13 17:00 ` Alan Stern
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1707131258190.1571-100000-IYeN2dnnYyZXsRXLowluHWD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
2017-07-13 18:48 ` Arthur Marsh
[not found] ` <02c6c52e-d520-6d84-81e7-0b49dfae0ec9-CkBdp7X+a1oIQCUVoCVjmQ@public.gmane.org>
2017-07-17 20:15 ` Arthur Marsh
2017-07-26 15:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-26 15:50 ` Alan Stern
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170712165200.GA29145@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=arthur.marsh@internode.on.net \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.