Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ...

[Jens Axboe]

On Wed, May 28 2003, Matthias Mueller wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 12:51:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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]);
> >  	}
> >  }
> > 
> 
> Works fine on my notebook. Good throughput and no mouse hangs anymore.

Could you possibly try just the last hunk of the patch, then? Ie just
remove the waitqueue_active(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]) check, leave the
rest as-is.

-- 
Jens Axboe