From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/13] Do not queue new I/O after scsi_remove_host() started
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 05:58:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121202135847.GN15930@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50B60966.40900@acm.org>
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:53:58PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> The function scsi_remove_host() may get invoked concurrently with
> scsi_request_fn(). Kill those I/O requests for which processing
> starts after scsi_remove_host() has been invoked. This makes
> device removal a little quicker by avoiding that such SCSI
> commands time out.
...
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> index f3d6e0d..5fe25b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> @@ -1549,7 +1549,8 @@ static void scsi_request_fn(struct request_queue *q)
> if (!req || !scsi_dev_queue_ready(q, sdev))
> break;
>
> - if (unlikely(!scsi_device_online(sdev))) {
> + if (unlikely(!scsi_device_online(sdev) ||
> + !scsi_host_scan_allowed(shost))) {
> sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev,
> "rejecting I/O to offline device\n");
> scsi_kill_request(req, q);
I don't know. This feels a bit weird to me. Shouldn't we instead
make sure that scsi_device_onilne() test fails once host removal is
initiated?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-02 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-28 12:39 [PATCH 0/13 v6] More device removal fixes Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:42 ` [PATCH v6 01/13] block: Rename queue dead flag Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:43 ` [PATCH v6 02/13] block: Let blk_drain_queue() caller obtain the queue lock Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:44 ` [PATCH v6 03/13] block: Avoid that request_fn is invoked on a dead queue Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:23 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-02 13:35 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:45 ` [PATCH v6 04/13] block: Avoid scheduling delayed work " Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:26 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-02 13:41 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:46 ` [PATCH v6 05/13] block: Make blk_cleanup_queue() wait until request_fn finished Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:28 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:47 ` [PATCH v6 06/13] bsg: Remove unused function bsg_goose_queue() Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:29 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:48 ` [PATCH v6 07/13] Fix race between starved list processing and device removal Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:32 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:48 ` [PATCH v6 08/13] Remove get_device() / put_device() pair from scsi_request_fn() Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:50 ` [PATCH v6 09/13] Avoid saving/restoring interrupt state inside scsi_remove_host() Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:35 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:51 ` [PATCH v6 10/13] Make scsi_remove_host() wait for device removal Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:45 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-02 13:48 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-03 8:23 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-12-03 16:15 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-03 16:38 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-12-03 16:42 ` Tejun Heo
2012-12-07 7:41 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-11-28 12:52 ` [PATCH v6 11/13] Make scsi_remove_host() wait until error handling finished Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:51 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:53 ` [PATCH v6 12/13] Avoid that scsi_device_set_state() triggers a race Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:53 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-28 12:53 ` [PATCH v6 13/13] Do not queue new I/O after scsi_remove_host() started Bart Van Assche
2012-12-02 13:58 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-12-02 14:02 ` [PATCH 0/13 v6] More device removal fixes Tejun Heo
2012-12-06 13:33 ` Jens Axboe
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=20121202135847.GN15930@mtj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=chanho.min@lge.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).