[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403231524100.18573@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:28:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>, oleg@...hat.com,
joseph.salisbury@...onical.com, Nagalakshmi.Nandigama@....com,
Sreekanth.Reddy@....com, rientjes@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
thenzl@...hat.com
Subject: Re: please fix FUSION
(Was:[v3.13][v3.14][Regression]kthread:makekthread_create()killable)
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 09:04 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > But then systemd/udev mutters:
> > > >
> > > > "You migh be able to work around the timeout with udev rules and
> > > > OPTIONS+="event_timeout=120", but that code was maybe never used
> > > > or tested, so it might not work correctly." [1]
> > > >
> > > > AFAICT from the ubuntu bug system [2] nobody bothered even to try that.
> > > >
> > > > And if the udev/systemd event_timeout option is broken it's way better
> > > > to fix that one instead of hacking random heuristics into the kernel.
> > >
> > > I haven't tried the event_timeout= option but I think it will not work.
> > > The timeout is hard coded as shown below and there will be no chance for taking
> > > the event_timeout= option into account.
> > >
> > > ---------- systemd-204/src/udev/udevd.c start ----------
> > > (...snipped...)
> > > /* check for hanging events */
> > > udev_list_node_foreach(loop, &worker_list) {
> > > struct worker *worker = node_to_worker(loop);
> > >
> > > if (worker->state != WORKER_RUNNING)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > if ((now(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) - worker->event_start_usec) > 30 * 1000 * 1000) {
> >
> > And because systemd has an immutable hardcoded random timeout we add
> > another hardcoded random timeout into kthread_create() to work around
> > that.
> >
> > How broken is that?
> >
> > And it seems other people have solved it:
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/lvm-devel/2013-September/msg00036.html
>
> I agree with Thomas. A hardcoded timeout is a systemd bug. However,
> could I get confirmation, while you can use this bug to do it, that the
> patch back in this thread actually fixes the crash when scsi_alloc_host
> fails, that's the serious SCSI bug, in my view?
Which patch, the one to kthread_create() or the one to SCSI?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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