From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
To: Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@one-eyed-alien.net>,
David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com.br>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
USB Developers <linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: USB hangs
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:37:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200401120937.19131.oliver@neukum.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040112073905.GA8580@one-eyed-alien.net>
Am Montag, 12. Januar 2004 08:39 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:11:58PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > >>> Plus I'd
> > >>>argue PF_MEMALLOC is a better solution anyway.
> > >>
> > >>It certainly seems like a more comprehensive fix for that
> > >>particular class of problems! :)
> > >
> > >
> > >Is it really more comprehensive? As I see it, it will only affect code
> > >executed in the context of the usb-storage thread. But, what about code
> > >which is invoked in tasklets or other contexts?
> >
> > Isn't it true that only that thread is allowed to
> > submit usb-storage i/o requests?
>
> That's very true.
>
> What I'm concerned about is the downstream effects of a usb_submit_urb() or
> the corresponding scatter-gather equivalents.
In 2.4 they all run in interrupt or thread context IIRC.
Problematic is the SCSI error handling thread. It can call usb_reset_device()
which calls down and does allocations.
Does that thread also do the PF_MEMALLOC trick?
Regards
Oliver
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-12 8:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-11 0:07 USB hangs Alan Cox
2004-01-11 0:23 ` Matthew Dharm
2004-01-11 0:49 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Oliver Neukum
2004-01-11 1:01 ` Matthew Dharm
2004-01-11 1:06 ` Oliver Neukum
2004-01-11 1:40 ` David Brownell
2004-01-11 2:33 ` Alan Cox
2004-01-11 8:02 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Oliver Neukum
2004-01-11 22:39 ` Alan Cox
2004-01-11 23:29 ` Oliver Neukum
2004-01-12 15:53 ` Alan Stern
2004-01-11 23:25 ` David Brownell
2004-01-11 23:31 ` Matthew Dharm
2004-01-12 4:11 ` David Brownell
2004-01-12 7:39 ` Matthew Dharm
2004-01-12 8:37 ` Oliver Neukum [this message]
2004-01-12 16:27 ` Alan Stern
2004-01-12 20:56 ` Alan Cox
2004-01-16 13:14 ` Pavel Machek
2004-01-11 23:33 ` Oliver Neukum
2004-01-12 0:09 ` Alan Cox
2004-01-12 0:25 ` Matthew Dharm
2004-01-11 18:46 ` Lukas Postupa
2004-01-11 20:04 ` Matthew Dharm
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-01-28 16:50 [linux-usb-devel] " Martin Bogomolni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200401120937.19131.oliver@neukum.org \
--to=oliver@neukum.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com.br \
--cc=mdharm-kernel@one-eyed-alien.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox