From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 08:10:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 08:10:51 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:49936 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 08:10:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 14:10:42 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Anton Altaparmakov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: tcq problem details Re: vanilla 2.5.13 severe file system corruption experienced follozing e2fsck ... Message-ID: <20020506121042.GP820@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020506093027.00aca720@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.2.20020505200138.00b2d660@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <20020505183451.98763.qmail@web14102.mail.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020505200138.00b2d660@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.2.20020506093027.00aca720@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.2.20020506105723.04138980@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 06 2002, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > Jens, > > I didn't get a panic in the limited testing I did just now on 2.5.14 for > ntfs however I do get soemthing odd. Even when the box is fully idle > proc/ide/blah/tcq shows this: > > TCQ currently on: yes > Max queue depth: 32 > Max achieved depth: 14 > Max depth since last: 1 > Current depth: 0 > Active tags: [ 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, > 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, ] > Queue: released [ 1390 ] - started [ 3986 ] > pending request and queue count mismatch (counted: 18) > DMA status: not running > > Some times the number of active tags is higher, seems to vary... > > /me ignorant: this looks wrong. Why are there active tags when no activity? > If a am right and this is a problem then perhaps tags are "leaking" some > how? Agrh, that's a silly bug in blk_queue_init_tags(). Could you replace the memset() of tags->tag_index in there with something ala: for (i = 0; i < depth; i++) tags->tag_index[i] = NULL; and see if that solves it? -- Jens Axboe