[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090423082108.GA4376@schmichrtp.de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:21:08 +0200
From: Christof Schmitt <christof.schmitt@...ibm.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix intermittent dm timeout based oops
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 08:01:06PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03 2009, Christof Schmitt wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:17:30AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > Very rarely under stress testing of dm, oopses are occuring as
> > > something tampers with an old stack frame. This has been traced back
> > > to blk_abort_queue() leaving a timeout_list pointing to the stack.
> > > The reason is that sometimes blk_abort_request() won't delete the
> > > timer (if the request is marked as complete but before the timer has
> > > been removed, a small race window). Fix this by splicing back from
> > > the ususally empty list to the q->timeout_list.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
> > > ---
> > > block/blk-timeout.c | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-timeout.c b/block/blk-timeout.c
> > > index bbbdc4b..6213123 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-timeout.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-timeout.c
> > > @@ -224,6 +224,12 @@ void blk_abort_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> > > list_for_each_entry_safe(rq, tmp, &list, timeout_list)
> > > blk_abort_request(rq);
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Occasionally, blk_abort_request() will return without
> > > + * deleting the element from the list
> > > + */
> > > + list_splice(&list, &q->timeout_list);
> > > +
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> > >
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 1.5.3.2
> >
> > I just noticed that this fix is not upstream yet and i have seen test
> > cases hitting this problem.
> >
> > Jens, are you going to included this patch, or should this go through
> > the SCSI tree?
>
> I will include it, and CC stable as well.
Any update on this? 2.6.30-rc3 does not have the patch.
--
Christof Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists