From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: 2.6.34 PDC20268 PATA IO error loop makes system unusable Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:53:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20100614075350.GC17092@basil.fritz.box> References: <20100613154808.GA10408@basil.fritz.box> <4C15DDA0.3020409@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:33373 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819Ab0FNHxw (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:53:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C15DDA0.3020409@kernel.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:43:28AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Write(10): 2a 00 00 e5 f0 08 00 01 00 00 > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Write(10): 2a 00 00 e5 f1 08 00 01 00 00 > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] Unhandled error code > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK > > sd 11:0:0:0: [sdd] CDB: Write(10): 2a 00 00 e5 f2 08 00 01 00 00 > > > > same messages repeating forever, just with CDB changing occasionally. > > > > .... > > > > not stopping until I reset the box. > > Did you have a lot of dirty pages? It looks like upper layer is Yes, there was a dd running. > trying to flush all the dirty buffers and SCSI is a tad bit too > verbose about failing each IO w/ DID_BAD_TARGET thus taking a very A bit too verbose? That's really an euphemism ... During the CDB: Write loop the console was totally unusable! And I think the fsyncs in syslogd completely made the performance tank. So basically it was a "reset button only" situation. When the device is gone what's the point in giving a message more than once? Can't the requests just be silently failed in this case? -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.