[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: hda: error: DMA in progress..
On Fri, Jun 21 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> U?ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?:
> >On Fri, Jun 21 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> >
> >>And I was asking about it's possible interactions with TCQ.
> >
> >
> >Haven't even tried TCQ yet, the above is just plain dma (no travelstarts
> >can do tcq).
> Argh...


> >>
> >> if (blk_queue_plugged(&drive->queue)) {
> >> BUG_ON(!drive->using_tcq);
> >> break;
> >
> >Not exactly, let me see if I remember the race here... The queue can
> >become plugged when we queue one request with the drive (the only on the
> >queue at that time), and then try to queue another right after (hence
> >only a tcq issue). In that time period, we drop the queue lock, so it's
> >indeed possible for the block layer to plug the queue before we reach
> >the above code again. The drive can be in two states here, 1) IDE_DMA is
> >set because the drive didn't release the bus (or it did, and it already
> >reconnected), or 2) drive is disconnected from the bus.
> OK. We have now just one single place where IDE_DMA gets unset ->
> udma_stop. This to too early to reset IDE_BUSY. However it well
> may be that ide_dma_intr() simply doesn't care about IDE_BUSY.
> Let's have a look...

You can leave IDE_BUSY there, that's ok. It's not invalid for IDE_BUSY
to be set while IDE_DMA gets cleared. That's expected.

> >For non-tcq, hitting IDE_DMA set queue_commands() is a bug. The old
> >IDE_BUSY/IDE_DMA worked because IDE_DMA must not be set if IDE_BUSY is
> >not set.
> >
> >
> >>This time it's no new damage - just detecting weak code
> >>from the past...
> >
> >
> >Smells like new breakage to me :-)
> Well lets look at ata_irq_intr, the end of it:
> * Note that handler() may have set things up for another
> * interrupt to occur soon, but it cannot happen until
> * we exit from this routine, because it will be the
> * same irq as is currently being serviced here, and Linux
> * won't allow another of the same (on any CPU) until we return.
> */
> if (startstop == ide_stopped) {
> if (!ch->handler) { /* paranoia */
> clear_bit(IDE_BUSY, ch->active);
> do_request(ch);
> } else {
> printk("%s: %s: huh? expected NULL handler on
> exit\n", drive->name, __FUNCTION__);
> }
> } else if (startstop == ide_released)
> queue_commands(drive);
> I think the above needs more tough now...

Same case as the one I described in the email following this, will only
happen for TCQ with release interrupt enabled. Otherwise it's illegal to
release the bus from the tcq interrupt handler. Since I removed all
traces of that long ago, you can safely kill the

} else if (startstop == ide_released)

part of it.

The rest looks sane. If handler returns it's no longer busy
(ide_stopped), we clear IDE_BUSY (IDE_DMA damn well better be cleared at
this point as well!!) and let do_request() start a new request (heck or
the same, we don't know and don't care).

Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.043 / U:8.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site