Re: [PATCH 06/12] scsi_transport_srp: Reduce failover time

Sagi Grimberg
2015-04-30T10:13:01Z

On 4/30/2015 11:59 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Unlike FC, there is no risk that SCSI devices will be offlined
> by the error handler if it is started while a reconnect attempt
> is ongoing. Hence report timeout errors as soon as possible
> if a higher software layer (e.g. multipathd) needs to be informed
> about a timeout. It is assumed that if both fast_io_fail_tmo < 0
> and rport->dev_loss_tmo < 0 that this means that there is no
> need to report timeouts quickly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>
> Cc: James Bottomley <JBottomley@Odin.com>
> Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com>
> Cc: Sebastian Parschauer <sebastian.riemer@profitbricks.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
> index 4a44337..6667c2b 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,11 @@ static inline struct Scsi_Host *rport_to_shost(struct srp_rport *r)
> return dev_to_shost(r->dev.parent);
> }
>
> +static inline struct srp_rport *shost_to_rport(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
> +{
> + return transport_class_to_srp_rport(&shost->shost_gendev);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * srp_tmo_valid() - check timeout combination validity
> * @reconnect_delay: Reconnect delay in seconds.
> @@ -626,9 +631,11 @@ static enum blk_eh_timer_return srp_timed_out(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
> struct scsi_device *sdev = scmd->device;
> struct Scsi_Host *shost = sdev->host;
> struct srp_internal *i = to_srp_internal(shost->transportt);
> + struct srp_rport *rport = shost_to_rport(shost);
>
> pr_debug("timeout for sdev %s\n", dev_name(&sdev->sdev_gendev));
> - return i->f->reset_timer_if_blocked && scsi_device_blocked(sdev) ?
> + return rport->fast_io_fail_tmo < 0 && rport->dev_loss_tmo < 0 &&
> + i->f->reset_timer_if_blocked && scsi_device_blocked(sdev) ?
> BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER : BLK_EH_NOT_HANDLED;
> }
>
>

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this patch? If the user
requested fast_io_fail_tmo of X, I would assume it wants srp to retry
for the command for X secs. Why should we fail it any earlier than that?

There is a situation where I've seen srp starting the fast_io_fail_tmo
later than expected because the QP retry exceeded error completion
arrives late for certain workloads. Was this the motivation for this
patch?

Sagi.