From: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
To: Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@purestorage.com>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
John Meneghini <jmeneghi@redhat.com>,
Jesse Taube <jtaubepe@redhat.com>,
Randy Jennings <randyj@purestorage.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dgiani@purestorage.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests] nvme/071: test CCR and CQT recovery on a multipath fabrics namespace
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 12:08:12 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <arXkH22uhHHdnaq3@shinmob> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260921205951.3023714-1-mkhalfella@purestorage.com>
On Sep 21, 2026 / 14:59, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> nvme/070 demonstrated the ABA ghost write window. The kernel closes it
> by fencing a controller before retrying timed-out writes on another
> path, but nvme/070 does not functionally exercise CCR or CQT
> themselves.
>
> Add a functional test that drives both cross-controller reset (CCR)
> and command quiesce time (CQT) recovery. The setup is the same as
> nvme/070: a ublk loop device backs an nvmet namespace that is exported
> through two ports, the host connects to both paths, and io_timeout on
> the subsystem drops to 2 seconds. In addition, the target subsystem's
> CQT is set to 30 seconds, since it is disabled by default.
>
> The first scenario holds one write in the backstore for 4 seconds. The
> host times the write out, starts fencing, and the CCR issued on the
> other path completes within its budget. The second scenario holds a
> write for 10 seconds, longer than CCR can wait, so the host gives up
> on CCR and switches to time-based recovery, waiting out the remaining
> CQT window before releasing the retry.
>
> Each scenario runs nvme-ghost-write-detector while recovery is in flight
> to check that no stale data surfaces, and confirms the recovery took the
> expected route by watching dmesg after a marker written to /dev/kmsg.
>
> The test requires nvme_core.multipath=Y and is limited to tcp, rdma
> and fc, the transports that implement controller fencing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@purestorage.com>
Thanks. Overall, this patch looks valuable, and I did not see problems.
As I commented on the dependent series [*], this patch also depends on the
miniublk change. This approach looks useful for this kind of precise test
condition control, but the two points I noted will need consideration.
dmesg_mark() and dmesg_since_mark() can be useful for other future test
cases, and may worth adding to common/rc. Also, it can be refactored with
_dmesg_since_test_start(). Said that, I think current patch is fine and
we can do that refactoring work later.
[*] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/arOFG9-sM_GrrbQf@shinmob/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-25 3:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-21 20:59 [PATCH blktests] nvme/071: test CCR and CQT recovery on a multipath fabrics namespace Mohamed Khalfella
2026-09-25 3:08 ` Shin'ichiro Kawasaki [this message]
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=arXkH22uhHHdnaq3@shinmob \
--to=shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dgiani@purestorage.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jmeneghi@redhat.com \
--cc=jtaubepe@redhat.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkhalfella@purestorage.com \
--cc=randyj@purestorage.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox