[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DA467FB.6020905@teksavvy.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:55:55 -0400
From: Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
To: Bruce Stenning <b.stenning@...igovision.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: sata_mv port lockup on hotplug (kernel 2.6.38.2)
On 11-04-12 10:07 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 11-04-12 06:30 AM, Bruce Stenning wrote:
..
>> I am currently inserting tracing into 2.6.38.2 to try to work out what is going
>> on. From mv_write_main_irq_mask I can see that the IRQ for each port is still
>> enabled, even when ports stop responding. I see interrupts generated when I
>> hotplug or unplug disks on ports that are not locked up, but no interrupt is
>> generated at all for the ports that are locked (this is from tracing in
>> asm_do_IRQ in arch/arm/kernel/irq.c)
>>
>> One thing I noticed was that there is no spinlock around the
>> mv_save_cached_regs/mv_edma_cfg in mv_hardreset (unlike mv_port_start and
>> mv_port_stop); why is this?
>
> The mv_hardreset path is run from a libata-eh thread,
> and it assumes it has exclusive access to the hardware.
Mmm.. another suspect is sata_mv's ".sff_irq_clear" function.
I don't see any locking in libata-sff.c before calling that one.
Tejun -- should libata-sff grab ap->lock before calling .sff_irq_clear,
or is that up to the LLD to do?
Thanks.
--
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