Re: [PATCH] raid5: panic() on dma_wait_for_async_tx() error
From: Dan Williams <hidden>
Date: 2012-11-20 02:32:24
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 09:18 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 05:22:25 +0000 Dan Williams [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 11/18/12 5:06 PM, "NeilBrown" [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi Dan, could you comment on this please? Would it make sense to arrange for errors to propagate up? Or should we arrange to do a software-fallback in the dma engine is a problem? What sort of things can cause error here anyway?Propagating up is missing reliable "dma abort" operation. In these cases the engine failed to complete due to hardware hang / driver bug, or has hit a memory error (uncorrectable even with software fallback). This originally should have been using async_tx_quiesce() which also does the panic. The engines that I have worked with have either lacked support for aborting, or were otherwise unable to recover from a hardware hang. However, for engines that do support error recovery they should be able to hide the failure from the upper layers.So maybe I could:diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c index ac09fa4..ffbf0ca 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c@@ -3268,7 +3268,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh) /* done submitting copies, wait for them to complete */ if (tx) { async_tx_ack(tx); - dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); + async_tx_quiesce(&tx); } }and then the panic would be somebody else's problem? I note that handle_stripe_expansion has: async_tx_ack(tx); dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); while async_tx_quiesce() has: if (dma_wait_for_async_tx(*tx) == DMA_ERROR) panic("DMA_ERROR waiting for transaction\n"); async_tx_ack(*tx); i.e. the same two functions called in the reverse order. Is the order important? Is handle_stripe_expansion wrong? Should the patch I apply actually be:diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c index ac09fa4..e51d903 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c@@ -3266,10 +3266,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_expansion(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh) } /* done submitting copies, wait for them to complete */ - if (tx) { - async_tx_ack(tx); - dma_wait_for_async_tx(tx); - } + async_tx_quiesce(&tx); }
Yes, this one, handles it like the other cases of needing to do a synchronous wait and does not care if tx is NULL. -- Dan