Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2003 10:30:28 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... |
| |
On Wed, May 28 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > that one, the answer is YES. > > > > That's the one, yes. Andrew, looks like your patch brought out some > > really bad behaviour. > > Yes, but why? > > It'd be interesting if any of these changes make a difference. > > > drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c | 7 > fs/buffer.c | 3030 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 3033 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff -puN drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~a drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c > --- 24/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~a 2003-05-28 00:48:09.000000000 -0700 > +++ 24-akpm/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2003-05-28 00:50:02.000000000 -0700 > @@ -590,10 +590,10 @@ static struct request *__get_request_wai > register struct request *rq; > DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current); > > - generic_unplug_device(q); > - add_wait_queue_exclusive(&q->wait_for_requests[rw], &wait); > + add_wait_queue(&q->wait_for_requests[rw], &wait); > do { > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > + generic_unplug_device(q); > if (q->rq[rw].count == 0) > schedule(); > spin_lock_irq(&io_request_lock); > @@ -829,8 +829,7 @@ void blkdev_release_request(struct reque > */ > if (q) { > list_add(&req->queue, &q->rq[rw].free); > - if (++q->rq[rw].count >= q->batch_requests && > - waitqueue_active(&q->wait_for_requests[rw])) > + if (++q->rq[rw].count >= q->batch_requests) > wake_up(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]); > } > }
The unplug() move could be the key, in theory we could end up having to unplug the queue again.
Question to the ones seeing the stalls - does a sysrq-s make things go again?
-- Jens Axboe
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |