From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: "blocked for more than 120 secs" --> a valid situation, how to prevent? Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:53:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4C9C129E.5050504@teksavvy.com> References: <4C9BE5A8.1090002@teksavvy.com> <4C9BEB49.2060208@interlog.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:53637 "EHLO ironport2-out.pppoe.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751844Ab0IXCxV (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:53:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C9BEB49.2060208@interlog.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: dgilbert@interlog.com Cc: Linux Kernel , IDE/ATA development list , linux-scsi 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.. Doing that seems rather wasteful, though. Note that this is the ATA "SECURITY ERASE" command, which doesn't have an "immed" bit to toggle. So one must wait for it to complete. cheers