From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correctly release and allocate a new request on TUR retries
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:25:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <493D2042.6030800@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081208132058.GB18255@kernel.dk>
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08 2008, Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
>> Mike Anderson wrote:
>>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 05 2008, Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
>>>>> Commands needing to be retried (TUR in this case) would result in a block
>>>>> I/O request being re-used, without being re-initialized properly. This
>>>>> patch ensures that the requests are correctly re-initialized via
>>>>> standard allocation means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prior to this patch, boots were failing consistently as in:
>>>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/5/161
>>>>>
>>>>> With this patch in place, the system is booting reliably.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alan D. Brunelle <alan.brunelle@hp.com>
>>>>> Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
>>>> Looks good.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps James can push it in, I'm about to shutdown for the day...
>>>>
>>> I know a failure was not detected in the hp_sw_start_stop function, but it
>>> uses the same retry method as hp_sw_tur we should update this function
>>> also.
>>>
>>> I made a quick scope of callers of blk_get_request and I did not see a
>>> repeated of this retry usage model. I will make another pass to see if I
>>> missed something.
>> drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c:cdrom_read_cdda_bpc() is even worse: it gets one
>> request, then sits in a while loop re-using the same request over and
>> over again.
>
> Sigh, it does indeed look messy...
>
>> Since blk_rq_init() is an exported symbol, perhaps instead of having the
>> three callers realloc, it _may_ be sufficient to just have them call
>> that before re-use? (See attached un-tested patch for an example.)
>
> I think that's a really bad idea, since it basically just clears the
> 'rq'. If you have that rq on some list (timeout, for instance), the
> kernel will not be happy. I think we have to, for now at least, put and
> get a request before looping. Then for 2.6.29 we can hopefully improve
> this situation!
OK, I'll work that one up for 2.6.28 and test it out this morning.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-08 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-05 14:36 [PATCH] Correctly release and allocate a new request on TUR retries Alan D. Brunelle
2008-12-05 14:49 ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-05 18:08 ` Mike Anderson
2008-12-08 13:15 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2008-12-08 13:20 ` Jens Axboe
2008-12-08 13:25 ` Alan D. Brunelle [this message]
2008-12-08 13:29 ` Jens Axboe
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=493D2042.6030800@hp.com \
--to=alan.brunelle@hp.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=andmike@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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