Hi,
On Tuesday 17 April 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday April 16, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > cfq_dispatch_insert() was called with rq == 0. This one is getting really
> > annoying... and md is involved again (RAID0 this time.)
>
> Yeah... weird.
> RAID0 is so light-weight and so different from RAID1 or RAID5 that I
> feel fairly safe concluding that the problem isn't in or near md.
> But that doesn't help you.
>
> This really feels like a locking problem.
>
> The problem occurs when ->next_rq is NULL, but ->sort_list.rb_node is
> not NULL. That happens plenty of times in the code (particularly as
> the first request is inserted) but always under ->queue_lock so it
> should never be visible to cfq_dispatch_insert..
>
> Except that drivers/scsi/ide-scsi.c:idescsi_eh_reset calls
> elv_next_request which could ultimately call __cfq_dispatch_requests
> without taking ->queue_lock (that I can see). But you probably aren't
> using ide-scsi (does anyone?).
ide-scsi is holding ide_lock while calling elv_next_request()
(for ide ide_lock == ->queue_lock)
Also from the original report:
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Brad Campbell wrote:
>
> The box is booted with PXE and runs an nfsroot. It's Debian 3.1. It has 2 SIL 3112 controllers in it
> with 4 WD 200GB ATA drives all on PATA->SATA bridges.
and you can even see libata functions in the OOPS...
Bart
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
