On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 18:54 +0100, Gabriel C wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 13:57 +0100, Laurent Riffard wrote: > >> Le 24.11.2007 07:42, James Bottomley a écrit : > >>> On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 18:52 +0100, Laurent Riffard wrote: > >>>> Le 23.11.2007 12:38, Hannes Reinecke a écrit : > >>>>> Hannes Reinecke wrote: > >>>>>> Laurent Riffard wrote: > >>>>>>> Le 21.11.2007 23:41, Andrew Morton a écrit : > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:45:22 +0100 > >>>>>>>> Laurent Riffard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Le 21.11.2007 05:45, Andrew Morton a écrit : > >>>>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc3/2.6.24-rc3-mm1/ > >>>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My system hangs shortly after I logged in Gnome desktop. SysRq-W > >>>>>>>>> shows > >>>>>>>>> that a bunch of task are blocked in "D" state, they seem to wait for > >>>>>>>>> some I/O completion. I can try to hand-copy some data if requested. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I found these messages in dmesg: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ~$ grep -C2 end_request dmesg-2.6.24-rc3-mm1 > >>>>>>>>> EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. > >>>>>>>>> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT > >>>>>>>>> driverbyte=DRIVER_OK,SUGGEST_OK > >>>>>>>>> end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 16460 > >>>>>>>>> ReiserFS: sda7: found reiserfs format "3.6" with standard journal > >>>>>>>>> ReiserFS: sda7: using ordered data mode > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> ReiserFS: sda7: Using r5 hash to sort names > >>>>>>>>> sd 0:0:1:0: [sdb] Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT > >>>>>>>>> driverbyte=DRIVER_OK,SUGGEST_OK > >>>>>>>>> end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 19632 > >>>>>>>>> sd 0:0:1:0: [sdb] Result: hostbyte=DID_NO_CONNECT > >>>>>>>>> driverbyte=DRIVER_OK,SUGGEST_OK > >>>>>>>>> end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 40037363 > >>>>>>>>> Adding 1048568k swap on /dev/mapper/vglinux1-lvswap. Priority:-1 > >>>>>>>>> extents:1 across:1048568k > >>>>>>>>> lp0: using parport0 (interrupt-driven). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These errors occur *only* with 2.6.24-rc3-mm1, they are 100% > >>>>>>>>> reproducible. > >>>>>>>>> 2.6.24-rc3 and 2.6.24-rc2-mm1 are fine. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Maybe something is broken in pata_via driver ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Could be - > >>>>>>>> libata-reimplement-ata_acpi_cbl_80wire-using-ata_acpi_gtm_xfermask.patch > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> pata_amd-pata_via-de-couple-programming-of-pio-mwdma-and-udma-timings.patch > >>>>>>>> touch pata_via.c. > >>>>>>> None of the above... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I did a bisection, it spotted git-scsi-misc.patch. > >>>>>>> I just run 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 + revert-git-scsi-misc.patch, and it works > >>>>>>> fine. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I guess commit 8655a546c83fc43f0a73416bbd126d02de7ad6c0 "[SCSI] Do > >>>>>>> not > >>>>>>> requeue requests if REQ_FAILFAST is set" is the real culprit. The > >>>>>>> other > >>>>>>> commits are touching documentation or drivers I don't use. I'll try > >>>>>>> to revert only this one this evening. > >>>> I can confirm : reverting commit > >>>> 8655a546c83fc43f0a73416bbd126d02de7ad6c0 > >>>> does fix the problem. > >>>> > >>>>>> Hmm. Weird. I'll have a look into it. Apparently I'll be returning an > >>>>>> error where > >>>>>> I shouldn't. Checking ... > >>>>>> > >>>>> Ok, found it. We are blocking even special commands (ie requests with > >>>>> PREEMPT not set) > >>>>> when FAILFAST is set. Which is clearly wrong. The attached patch fixes > >>>>> this. > >>>> Sorry, it's not enough. 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 + your patch still hangs with I/O > >>>> errors. > >>> I think the problem is the way we treat BLOCKED and QUIESCED (the latter > >>> is the state that the domain validation uses and which we cannot kill > >>> fastfail on). It's definitely wrong to kill fastfail requests when the > >>> state is QUIESCE. > >>> > >>> This patch (which is applied on top of Hannes original) separates the > >>> BLOCK and QUIESCE states correctly ... does this fix the problem? > >> > >> No, it doesn't help... (2.6.24-rc3-mm1 + your patch still has problems) > > > > OK, could you post dmesgs again, please. I actually tested this with an > > aic79xx card, and for me it does cause Domain Validation to succeed > > again. > > > > Are the patches indeed to fix that problem as well ? > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/23/5
That dmesg is from an unknown SCSI card exhibiting Domain Validation problems, so it's a reasonable probability, yes ... but you'll need the additional hack I just did to prevent further intermittent failures. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html