[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DA33A68.7040707@fusionio.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:29:12 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: Strange block/scsi/workqueue issue
On 2011-04-11 19:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (cc'ing James. The original message is http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/11/175 )
>
> Please read from the bottom up.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 03:56:03PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>> [<ffffffff8167b8e5>] schedule_timeout+0x295/0x310
>> [<ffffffff8167a650>] wait_for_common+0x120/0x170
>> [<ffffffff8167a748>] wait_for_completion+0x18/0x20
>> [<ffffffff810aba4c>] wait_on_cpu_work+0xec/0x100
>> [<ffffffff810abb3b>] wait_on_work+0xdb/0x150
>> [<ffffffff810abc33>] __cancel_work_timer+0x83/0x130
>> [<ffffffff810abced>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0xd/0x10
>
> 4. which in turn tries to sync cancel q->delay_work. Oops, deadlock.
>
>> [<ffffffff813b24b4>] blk_sync_queue+0x24/0x50
>
> 3. and calls into blk_sync_queue()
>
>> [<ffffffff813b24ef>] blk_cleanup_queue+0xf/0x60
>> [<ffffffff81479a89>] scsi_free_queue+0x9/0x10
>> [<ffffffff8147d30b>] scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext+0xeb/0x140
>> [<ffffffff810ac826>] execute_in_process_context+0x86/0xa0
>
> 2. It triggers SCSI device release
>
>> [<ffffffff8147d1f7>] scsi_device_dev_release+0x17/0x20
>> [<ffffffff814609f2>] device_release+0x22/0x90
>> [<ffffffff813c8165>] kobject_release+0x45/0x90
>> [<ffffffff813c9767>] kref_put+0x37/0x70
>> [<ffffffff813c8027>] kobject_put+0x27/0x60
>> [<ffffffff81460822>] put_device+0x12/0x20
>> [<ffffffff81478bd9>] scsi_request_fn+0xb9/0x4a0
>> [<ffffffff813aff2a>] __blk_run_queue+0x6a/0x110
>> [<ffffffff813b1f66>] blk_delay_work+0x26/0x40
>
> 1. Workqueue starting execution of q->delay_work and scsi_request_fn()
> is run from there.
>
>> [<ffffffff810aa9c7>] process_one_work+0x197/0x520
>> [<ffffffff810acfec>] worker_thread+0x15c/0x330
>> [<ffffffff810b1f16>] kthread+0xa6/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff81687064>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>
> So, q->delay_work ends up waiting for itself. I'd like to blame SCSI
> (as it also fits my agenda to kill execute_in_process_context ;-) for
> diving all the way into blk_cleanup_queue() directly from request_fn.
>
> Does the following patch fix the problem?
Thanks, that looks a lot saner. This is/was a time bomb waiting to blow
up.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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