On 02/12/2014 08:45 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:29:10PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> Well, _actually_ the cancel_delayed_work should be pointless; I've >> just added it as a terminal measure here. >> (It'd actually be an idea to insert a BUG_ON() here ...) >> >> Thing is whenever the eh_timeout thingie kicks in we most definitely >> know there's a command in flight, and hence scsi_command_put() >> should _never_ be called. >> Only after eh_abort has finished the command will be returned via >> scsi_command_put(), but then eh_abort is done for, too, and no item >> should remain in the workqueue. > > The issue I saw actually was with a different workqueue, sorry for the > noise. I have to say I really hate the generic workqueue workers which > make it almost impossible to debug issues before they hit the actual > worker function.. > Oh, workqueues are fun, no doubt.
_Especially_ when some poor deluded soul executes I/O from userspace tasks running with RT priorities. Handling that properly would be a fitting subject for LSF ... Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage h...@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
