[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzFQiYhJcBfGD7moL3gC-ocwXJ2-kTjuNrw5hBGGbz4ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:12:53 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Calvin Walton <calvin.walton@...stin.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: long boot delays caused by 070ad7e7 floppy change
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> [ 2.496493] calling floppy_init+0x0/0xe46 @ 1
> [ 2.511303] floppy0: lock_fdc: -1 (out of 8)
> [ 2.511346] floppy0: __reschedule_timeout: setting timeout to 750
Ahhah. And you have CONFIG_HZ250 set, don't you?
So it's actually asking for a 3-second timeout like it should.
> [ 2.511372] floppy0: reschedule timeout lock fdc
> [ 22.501757] floppy0: reschedule timeout do wakeup
But that actual timeout is too damn reliably pretty much exactly 20s
for it to be anything else.
I wonder if 'fd_timeout' had been previously queued already with the
20s timeout, and not canceled. So then the new queuing of a 3-second
timeout doesn't actually do anything, because the
WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT is still set.
So maybe we're missing a cancel somewhere.
What happens if you add a
cancel_delayed_work(&fd_timeout);
to before the queue_delayed_work() in __reschedule_timeout()? Does
that possibly make the delay really be 3 seconds?
Linus
--
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