All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove two cancel_delayed_work() calls from the error handler
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:22:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53842F3B.5010106@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53842BE7.5060304@acm.org>

(Resending; mailer rejected it ...)

On 05/27/2014 08:08 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 05/27/14 07:40, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 05/26/2014 05:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>>> index f17aa7a..5232583 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>>> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ scsi_abort_command(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
>>>            SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
>>>                scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, scmd,
>>>                        "scmd %p previous abort failed\n", scmd));
>>> -        cancel_delayed_work(&scmd->abort_work);
>>> +        WARN_ON_ONCE(delayed_work_pending(&scmd->abort_work));
>>>            return FAILED;
>>>        }
>>>
>>>
>> The first bit is okay, the second isn't.
>>
>> The second bit is for these cases where the abort got scheduled (in
>> scsi_abort_command()), but the workqueue didn't get executed by the time
>> the next timeout occured.
>> I know, highly unlikely, but there is no safeguarding that it _cannot_
>> happen.
>> So the second cancel_delayed_work() has to stay.
>
> But how could that next timeout occur while abort_work is still pending
> ? The block layer removes a request from the timeout list before
> invoking the timeout handler (see also blk_rq_check_expired()). This
> means that no block layer timers are active after abort_work has been
> scheduled and before scmd_eh_abort_handler() is called. This also means
> that a second timeout can only occur after a SCSI command has been
> reinserted to a SCSI device queue. And such a reinsertion can only occur
> after scmd_eh_abort_handler() has started. The pending bit is cleared
> from a work struct before the associated handler is invoked. This is why
> I think the above cancel_delayed_work() statement is not necessary. Or
> did I perhaps overlook something ?
>
Hmm. Okay, convinced.

Acked-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-27  6:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-26 15:12 Make SCSI error handler code easier to understand Bart Van Assche
2014-05-26 15:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] Remove two cancel_delayed_work() calls from the error handler Bart Van Assche
2014-05-26 15:15   ` [PATCH 2/3] block: Introduce blk_rq_completed() Bart Van Assche
2014-05-26 15:27     ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27  7:49       ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27  7:52         ` hch
2014-05-27  8:00           ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27  8:23         ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27  9:00           ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27 10:21             ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 10:47               ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27 10:59                 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 11:13                   ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27 11:26                     ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 11:52                       ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27 11:57                         ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27  5:40     ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-05-26 15:23   ` [PATCH 1/3] Remove two cancel_delayed_work() calls from the error handler Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-26 15:25     ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27  8:06     ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27  8:09       ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27  8:36         ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27  8:56           ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27  9:06             ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27  5:40   ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-05-27  6:08     ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27  6:22       ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2014-05-26 15:15 ` [PATCH 3/3] Make SCSI error handler code easier to understand Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27  5:42   ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-05-28 20:15 ` Joe Lawrence
2014-05-29 11:33   ` James Bottomley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53842F3B.5010106@suse.de \
    --to=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.