From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 15 13:21:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3075F16A4CE; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:21:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.powertech.no (smtp1.powertech.no [195.159.0.145]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4197D43D1F; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:21:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from frode@nordahl.net) Received: from [195.159.6.24] (ws24.ns5.powertech.no [195.159.6.24]) by smtp1.powertech.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B9780F7; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:21:43 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: <4BF12A73-3709-11D9-B78A-000A95A9A574@nordahl.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Frode Nordahl Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:21:45 +0100 To: Robert Watson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3-RELEASE: WARNING - WRITE_DMA interrupt timout - what does it mean? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:21:46 -0000 On Nov 10, 2004, at 11:34, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, S=F8ren Schmidt wrote: > >>> I'm still a bit skeptical that the task queue is at fault -- I run = my >>> notebook with continuous measurement of the latency to schedule=20 >>> tasks, >>> generating a warning for any latency > .5 seconds, and the only time=20= >>> I >>> ever see that sort of latency is during the boot process when ACPI=20= >>> has >>> scheduled a task to run, but the task queue thread has not yet been >>> allowed to run: >> >> Right, the timeout is 5 secs. I havn't looked into how the taskqueues >> are handled recently, but in case of ATA read/writes it is the >> bio_taskqueue handled by geom thats in use not the catchall ones, = does >> your timing cover that as well? > > Nope -- I had assumed that the suggested task problems in question was=20= > the > use of taskqueue_enqueue() in ata-queue for the timeout, rather than=20= > the > bio_taskqueue() ata_completed() call. Do you have a patch that covers these as well? I have two systems not going production anytime soon, and I will be=20 more than happy to put these to work to help find this problem in the=20 mean time. I can make them panic at will, but I think the panics are useless for=20 finding the problem, since the panic probably occurs after errors made=20= to the filesystem because of this bug. Mvh, Frode Nordahl > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > robert@fledge.watson.org Principal Research Scientist, McAfee=20 > Research > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to=20 > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"