From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Levitsky Subject: Re: "blocked for more than 120 secs" --> a valid situation, how to prevent? Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:58:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1285293493.17998.2.camel@maxim-laptop> References: <4C9BE5A8.1090002@teksavvy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:44604 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752231Ab0IXB6S (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:58:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C9BE5A8.1090002@teksavvy.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: Linux Kernel , IDE/ATA development list , linux-scsi On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 19:41 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > What's the purpose of this stack dump, > and how can it be prevented in this NORMAL situation?? > > The command was "hdparm --security-erase NULL /dev/sdb", > which takes about 66 minutes to complete on this particular drive. > > I don't see any obvious way for the task to mark itself > as needing longer than 120 secs to complete the operation. There is other valid user case. If application calls sys_sync and at same time the filesystem is written by an other application, the sync can easily take more that 2 minutes. Or if block device is slow (as it was with some flash cards). Indeed it would be good to have a kind of touch_softlockup_watchdog(). Best regards, Maxim Levitsky