From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [2.4.21] Spurious ABORTs Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:32:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1127838777.4814.44.camel@mulgrave> References: <0E3FA95632D6D047BA649F95DAB60E57060CD1DD@exa-atlanta> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat9.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.41]:31899 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964985AbVI0QdC (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:33:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0E3FA95632D6D047BA649F95DAB60E57060CD1DD@exa-atlanta> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Bagalkote, Sreenivas" Cc: "'linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org'" , 'Christoph Hellwig' , "'hch@lst.de'" , "Kolli, Neela Syam" On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 12:18 -0400, Bagalkote, Sreenivas wrote: > When I return SUCCESS to the spurious ABORTs, the systems keeps > running. I am getting aborts for commands that I completed as > early as 60+ seconds ago. Could somebody please tell me what in > SCSI layer can cause it to do this? Well, 2.4 is somewhat more eccentric than 2.6 as far as SCSI goes. However, I can guess about this one. If a command is completed after it times out, you still get error handling for it (this is actually still true in 2.6). When the system becomes aware of a need for error handling it quiesces the driver (i.e. waits for all outstanding commands to time out or return) before beginning the eh thread. So, if a bunch of commands are failing, you can complete one that has already timed out and still receive an ABORT for it ages afterwards. James