From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle McMartin Subject: Re: "blocked for more than 120 secs" --> a valid situation, how to prevent? Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:08:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20100924020846.GI13116@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <4C9BE5A8.1090002@teksavvy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:39639 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755151Ab0IXCIq (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:08:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline 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, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:41:28PM -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. > It's an excellent question, a large number of bug reports I see against Fedora are the result of this firing on some long-running task (like a huge 'sync') and the user getting scared by the message assuming the universe was imploding and reporting a bug. I'd suggest we add a new task_struct flag for it, but we appear to be out of bits! Perhaps we can abuse one of the other ones (PF_FROZEN seems the likely choice since the watchdog bails out if it sees it, but that likely has other ramifications.) --Kyle