All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>
To: yangxingui <yangxingui@huawei.com>,
	yanaijie@huawei.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, mkp@kernel.org
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxarm@huawei.com, liuyonglong@huawei.com,
	kangfenglong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] scsi: libsas: Fix SMP IO deadlock during HA resume
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:37:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a58c704f-be1c-406d-a512-933d38cce44a@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ddfd984f-4690-5c0d-76ca-30bd505e3ab1@huawei.com>

On 9/22/26 04:10, yangxingui wrote:
>>>
>>> It is also a narrow trigger: a directly-attached ATA device resets its
>>> phy via lldd_control_phy() (no SMP IO), so it needs an expander-
>>> attached ATA device whose EH lands inside the drain of a runtime
>>> resume - which is why the testing of 3dbbbf656b85, whose scenario was
>>> the disk-wake race, did not catch it.
>>
>> uh, the expander-attached SATA disk scenario would be a very common 
>> scenario - do you test this always when developing this code?
> Yes,we do have a full test suite, but it runs per machine topology. The
> 3dbbbf656b85 validation ran on the direct-attach configuration, since
> the HA resume race it was fixing was originally reported there. The
> expander topology was covered in the next test round, and this
> deadlock showed up as soon as we switched to it: on that topology
> every ATA port resume goes through the EH reset (that is how
> ata_sas_port_resume() is implemented), so the SMP IO against the
> ongoing runtime resume happens on essentially every cycle.
> 

So it seems that the expander-attached scenario was not tested for that 
comment mentioned.

You need to test directly-attached and expander-attached config for any 
relevant patchset.

Otherwise we have this scenario that alternate configs are continually 
broken.

>>>
>>> Given that, should Fixes: point at 3dbbbf656b85 instead? I kept
>>> 0da7ca4c4fd9 as that is where the pm_runtime_get_sync() being fixed
>>> comes from, but the deadlock itself only exists where 3dbbbf656b85
>>> is.
>>>
>> I am just wondering why this needs to be fixed so many times...
> Aha - each respin addressed a review finding on the PM
> reference handling, not a re-fix of the deadlock. The core fix is
> unchanged since v1.
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c b/drivers/scsi/libsas/ 
>> sas_expander.c
>> index 811c9eb4fef1..5a8cdd3682fe 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> @@ -61,8 +61,22 @@ static int smp_execute_task_sg(struct domain_device 
>> *dev,
>>       struct sas_internal *i =
>>           to_sas_internal(dev->port->ha->shost->transportt);
>>       struct sas_ha_struct *ha = dev->port->ha;
>> -
>> -    pm_runtime_get_sync(ha->dev);
>> +    bool ha_resuming = test_bit(SAS_HA_RESUMING, &ha->state);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * While the host is resuming, ha->dev may be RPM_RESUMING and
>> +     * the resume blocked in sas_drain_work() waiting for this very
>> +     * SMP IO, so waiting for the host to resume here would deadlock.
>> +     * Hold the reference without resuming, the hardware is already
>> +     * initialized by the LLDD before sas_resume_ha() runs.
>> +     */
>> +    if (ha_resuming) {
>> +        pm_runtime_get_noresume(ha->dev);
>> +    } else {
>> +        res = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(ha->dev);
>>
>> why change from pm_runtime_get_sync() to pm_runtime_resume_and_get()?
> 
> That addresses the pre-existing issue which Sashiko flagged:

Then that would be a separate change.

> the
> return value of pm_runtime_get_sync() was ignored, so on a failed
> resume the code would blindly proceed to submit the SMP task anyway.
> Simply checking the return of pm_runtime_get_sync() would be awkward:
> it keeps the usage counter incremented even on failure, so the error
> path would also need a manual pm_runtime_put_noidle() to balance it.
> pm_runtime_resume_and_get() rolls the counter back internally and
> returns 0 or an errno, so the check is just "if (res) return res;"
> 
>>
>> +        if (res)
>> +            return res;
>> +    }
>>
>> So when is it required to really do pm_runtime_resume_and_get() (and 
>> not pm_runtime_get_noresume())? I mean, when is this called such that 
>> we need to resume the ha->dev?
> Outside the resume window, the caller that needs the resume is BSG
> userspace SMP requests (sas_smp_handler): ses/expander tools query
> the topology at any time and nothing else holds the host awake, so
> the host may have autosuspended; the resume also re-registers the
> devices (the PHYE -> dev_found path runs inside the resume), so the
> IO can proceed. This is the case 0da7ca4c4fd9 was written for.
> The other callers either cannot run while the host is suspended or
> already hold their own PM reference, so they never exercise the
> resume path.

So then could the RPM resume calls be moved higher up, like at the 
smp_execute_task_sg() callsite? Would that work?

The check which you initially proposed for testing SAS_HA_RESUMING looks 
racy.

> 
> log as follow:
> [root@localhost ~]# smp_discover /dev/bsg/expander-5\:0
>    phy  11:U:attached:[5446a2eb02349000:00  t(SSP)]  12 Gbps
>    phy  16:U:attached:[5001882016000001:00  i(SSP+STP+SMP)]  12 Gbps
>    phy  17:U:attached:[5001882016000001:01  i(SSP+STP+SMP)]  12 Gbps
>    phy  18:U:attached:[5001882016000001:02  i(SSP+STP+SMP)]  12 Gbps
>    phy  19:U:attached:[5001882016000001:03  i(SSP+STP+SMP)]  12 Gbps
>    phy  24:D:attached:[500e004aaaaaaa1e:24  V i(SSP) t(SSP)]  12 Gbps
> 
> [47910.943602] jamy pm_runtime_resume_and_get(ha->dev)
> [47910.969905] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: resuming from operating 
> state [D0]
> [47912.205965] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: neither _PS0 nor _PR0 is 
> defined
> [47912.213852] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: waiting up to 25 seconds for 
> 4 phys to resume
> [47912.268896] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: phyup: phy0 link_rate=11
> [47912.275986] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: phyup: phy1 link_rate=11
> [47912.276017] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: dev[7:2] found
> [47912.282976] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: phyup: phy2 link_rate=11
> [47912.282980] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: phyup: phy3 link_rate=11
> [47912.303834] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: dev[8:1] found
> [47912.310296] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: dev[9:1] found
> [47912.316809] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:74:04.0: end of resuming controller
> [47912.316817] sas: broadcast received: 0
> [47912.324219] sas: REVALIDATING DOMAIN on port 0, pid:282487
> [47912.329870] jamy pm_runtime_put(ha->dev)


  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-22 10:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-18  7:03 [PATCH v3] scsi: libsas: Fix SMP IO deadlock during HA resume Xingui Yang
2026-09-18  7:15 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-20  6:27   ` yangxingui
2026-09-21 11:37 ` John Garry
2026-09-21 12:21   ` yangxingui
2026-09-21 14:05     ` John Garry
2026-09-22  3:10       ` yangxingui
2026-09-22 10:37         ` John Garry [this message]
2026-09-28  3:47           ` yangxingui

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=a58c704f-be1c-406d-a512-933d38cce44a@linux.dev \
    --to=john.garry@linux.dev \
    --cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kangfenglong@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=liuyonglong@huawei.com \
    --cc=mkp@kernel.org \
    --cc=yanaijie@huawei.com \
    --cc=yangxingui@huawei.com \
    /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.