From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: "Rengarajan, Narayanan (STSD)" <narayanan.rengarajan@hp.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] : Spinning up disk is observed on standby paths until timeout, resulting in longer path restoration time.
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:03:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1235145795.9025.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090220155221.GU16841@parisc-linux.org>
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 08:52 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 03:36:22PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > + sshdr.asc == 4 && (sshdr.ascq == 3 || sshdr.ascq == 0x0b ||
> > > sshdr.ascq == 0x0c) ) {
> > > + break; /* manual intervention required || Standby ||
> >
> > This really doesn't look right ASC/ASCQ 0x04/0x0b is LUN not accessible;
> > target *port* in standby state. That's supposed to be because it was put
> > into a standby state according to SPC3(r23) 5.8.2.4.4
> >
> > I don't see how a port (target) is expected to come out of standby with
> > a LUN command. The standard implies you need to do it with a set target
> > port groups command. What array is actually giving this?
>
> The port isn't coming out of standby state. We send it a TEST_UNIT_READY,
> it replies with a 0x04/0x0b. At that point, we currently decide to send
> it a START_STOP and wait 100 seconds. This is clearly a crappy decision
> on our part, we should just bail.
So we should be bailing on manual intervention, TP standby and TP
unavailable? It looks like TP assymetric access transition is waitable.
It also looks like offline and notify (enable spinup) required are also
not worth waiting for ... although the latter is a SAS power management
state which it's not clear to me how to handle properly.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-20 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-20 11:14 [PATCH 1/1] : Spinning up disk is observed on standby paths until timeout, resulting in longer path restoration time Rengarajan, Narayanan (STSD)
2009-02-20 15:36 ` James Bottomley
2009-02-20 15:52 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-02-20 16:03 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2009-02-20 16:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-02-20 16:24 ` James Bottomley
2009-02-20 17:04 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-02-23 11:48 ` Rengarajan, Narayanan (STSD)
2009-02-23 14:52 ` James Bottomley
2009-02-28 21:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-02-28 23:56 ` 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=1235145795.9025.4.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=narayanan.rengarajan@hp.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