From: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
To: Stefan Haberland <sth@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.vom>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/stp: Drop CLOCK_SYNC_STP
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 14:29:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yt9d4ifyvca4.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cffc6734-19c8-439d-a55b-79bdedd54eab@linux.ibm.com>
Stefan Haberland <sth@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Am 14.08.26 um 09:34 schrieb sashiko-bot@kernel.org:
>> [Severity: High]
>> Could this change cause a boot hang on systems with XRC-capable DASDs
>> but no active STP network?
>>
>> Because stp_online is initialized to true, if the machine supports the
>> STP facility but is not connected to a usable STP time source, time
>> synchronization won't occur and stp_online will remain true.
>>
>> With stp_online remaining true, get_phys_clock() will continuously fall
>> through and return -EAGAIN, rather than safely returning -EACCES as it
>> did prior to this patch.
>>
>> The DASD driver ignores -EACCES but propagates -EAGAIN:
>>
>> drivers/s390/block/dasd_eckd.c:set_timestamp() {
>> ...
>> if ((rc && !private->rdc_data.facilities.XRC_supported) ||
>> rc == -EOPNOTSUPP || rc == -EACCES)
>> return 0;
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> If -EAGAIN is propagated up, will the block layer endlessly retry the I/O,
>> resulting in a complete hang during boot?
>>
>
> From what I see, Sashiko is right. This will break how the DASD driver
> actually checks if the clock is enabled and in sync.
>
> The DASD driver relies on -EACCES to know that the clock exists but STP
> sync is not online/applicable which in turn will skip it, whereas
> -EAGAIN means the clock does exist but is not in sync yet and we should
> wait and retry, which in turn leads to endless loop of request never
> being built because we never get a valid timestamp.
>
> So I guess we will still need a third bit to differentiate those states.
If I understood the code correctly, it would only block until STP is in
sync, so this is expected behaviour - looking at z/VM documentation (especially
the XRC_OPTional flag), DASD I/O should be blocked until time is in
sync.
I think the correct way would be to add a patch on top that adds the
XRC_OPTional parameter to either block DASD I/O when STP is in unsynchronized
state (current behaviour) or just omits the timestamp when XRC_OPTional
is set.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-09 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-14 7:22 [PATCH] s390/stp: Drop CLOCK_SYNC_STP Sven Schnelle
2026-08-14 7:34 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 12:10 ` Stefan Haberland
2026-09-09 12:29 ` Sven Schnelle [this message]
2026-09-09 13:07 ` Stefan Haberland
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=yt9d4ifyvca4.fsf@linux.ibm.com \
--to=svens@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.vom \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sth@linux.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox