From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Y40HK-0001ev-Pc for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 04:44:04 +0000 Message-ID: <549B95D6.2070100@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 12:43:02 +0800 From: hujianyang MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: ubi_check_volume() hung on a single core system References: <549AAD57.8020307@huawei.com> <549ABF9D.6030901@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <549ABF9D.6030901@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd , Artem Bityutskiy List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2014/12/24 21:29, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 24.12.2014 um 13:11 schrieb hujianyang: >> Hi, >> >> When I was running mtd-utils/tests/ubi-tests/io_basic.c on a >> single core system, watchdog reset the OS and printed: >> >> ERR:The task of feeding senior watchdog overtimes, system will reset! >> >> io_basic.c tests the UBI_IOCVOLUP feature of UBI driver. UBI >> will perform ubi_check_volume() after updating operation is >> finished. The used ebs will be scanned for a static volume in >> this function. >> >> If I run schedule() in the loop of eraseblock scanning, the >> *reset* not happen and the system works in right condition. >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/misc.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/misc.c >> index dbda77e..f4f478c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/misc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/misc.c >> @@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ int ubi_check_volume(struct ubi_device *ubi, int vol_id) >> for (i = 0; i < vol->used_ebs; i++) { >> int size; >> >> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); >> + schedule_timeout(HZ/10); > > cond_resched() please. > >> if (i == vol->used_ebs - 1) >> size = vol->last_eb_bytes; >> else >> >> >> >> I think this error can't be re-created on a multi-core system. >> It can only happen on a single core system. This directly >> schedule I modified would hurt the performance of volume check. >> >> Does anyone interested in this issue? > > Of course! > > Thanks, > //richard > > . > Hi Richard, Thanks for your suggestion. I've tested it and achieve much better performance. Certainly, fix this issue. I'd like to send a patch about this problem. Do you think it is necessary to fix this in mainline? Thanks, Hu