[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200219013714.GB31488@ming.t460p>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:37:14 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
Cc: Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: BLKSECDISCARD ioctl and hung tasks
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:11:53AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:47 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> wrote:
> > What are the 'other operations'? Are they block IOs?
> >
> > If yes, that is why I suggest to fix submit_bio_wait(), which should cover
> > most of sync bio submission.
> >
> > Anyway, the fix is simple & generic enough, I'd plan to post a formal
> > patch if no one figures out better doable approaches.
>
> Yeah I think any block I/O operation that occurs after the
> BLKSECDISCARD is submitted will also potentially be affected by the
> hung task timeouts, and I think your patch will address that. My only
> concern with it is that it might hide some other I/O "hangs" that are
> due to device misbehavior instead. Yes driver and device timeouts
> should generally catch those, but with this in place we might miss a
> few bugs.
We may add a warning(device name, request, ...) when one IO isn't completed in
sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs, so this device misbehavior still can be
caught.
>
> Given the nature of these types of storage devices though, I think
> that's a minor issue and not worth blocking the patch on, given that
> it should prevent a lot of false positive hang reports as Salman
> demonstrated.
OK, I will post it soon.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists