lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: next-20081119: general protection fault: get_next_timer_interrupt()
    On Mon, Nov 24 2008, malahal@us.ibm.com wrote:
    > Stephen Rothwell [sfr@canb.auug.org.au] wrote:
    > > > The block timer code calls del_timer(), should it call del_timer_sync()?
    > > > It is possible although unlikely that you are hitting del_timer_sync vs
    > > > del_timer problem in the block timeout code. Can only be seen on SMP
    > > > systems though!
    > >
    > > Is this still a problem in next-20081121? In that tree, the block commit
    > > "block: leave the request timeout timer running even on an empty list"
    > > was changed to add this:
    > >
    > > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
    > > index 04267d6..44f547c 100644
    > > --- a/block/blk-core.c
    > > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
    > > @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_stop_queue);
    > > void blk_sync_queue(struct request_queue *q)
    > > {
    > > del_timer_sync(&q->unplug_timer);
    > > + del_timer_sync(&q->timeout);
    > > kblockd_flush_work(&q->unplug_work);
    > > }
    > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_sync_queue);
    >
    > I was looking at the Linux tree. Clearly same problem doesn't exist with
    > the above commit! I wonder why kblockd_flush_work() is called after the
    > del_timer_sync(). It makes sense to cancel the work and then shutdown
    > the timer(s). I doubt if you are running into this problem though.

    If the kernel tested doesn't include the above fix, it'll surely go
    boom. Can someone verify that this is the case?

    --
    Jens Axboe



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-25 09:55    [W:0.042 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site