From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Justin Madru <jdm64@gawab.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: 2.6.30-rc1: invalid opcode with call trace
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:45:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090409164511.16602da7@gondolin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19f34abd0904080915t1a47cab4jbfe748eeaa47d675@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:15:21 +0200,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that you have two async port probes:
>
> [ 24.177306] calling 1_async_port_probe+0x0/0xaa @ 2841
> [ 24.177825] calling 2_async_port_probe+0x0/0xaa @ 2842
>
> of which only the first completes, because the first async call itself
> tries to flush the async list while holding a lock (the
> &shost->scan_mutex in __scsi_add_device), causing deadlock.
>
> In short, I don't think we should call async_synchronize_full() from
> scsi_complete_async_scans() at all. I'm including a more detailed
> description/justification in the patch (attached).
Not that I understand much about the scsi code, but there seem to be
two 'async' processes going on:
- async scanning of the Scsi_Host (which scsi_complete_async_scans()
waits for)
- async execution of a part of scsi_probe (which the
async_synchronize_full() waits for)
Considering the async scanning complete only when all probes have
finished seems sensible, so the fix doesn't look correct to me.
Would it perhaps make sense to introduce a per-Scsi_Host running list
so that do_scsi_scan_host() could use async_synchronize_domain() to
wait for all async probes for the host to finish? Or am I
misunderstanding the aim of the scsi code?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-09 14:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-08 5:30 2.6.30-rc1: invalid opcode with call trace Justin Madru
2009-04-08 6:32 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 6:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-08 6:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-08 6:53 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 7:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-08 7:15 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 7:11 ` Justin Madru
2009-04-08 8:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-10 8:15 ` Heinz Diehl
2009-04-08 7:27 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-04-08 7:40 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 7:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-08 7:56 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 16:15 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-04-09 14:45 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
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=20090409164511.16602da7@gondolin \
--to=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=jdm64@gawab.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
/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