Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi_dh_alua: properly handling the ALUA transitioning state

[Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>]

On 5/20/22 12:57, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Brian, Martin,
> 
> sorry, I've overlooked this patch previously. I have to say I think
> it's wrong and shouldn't have been applied. At least I need more in-
> depth explanation.
> 
> On Mon, 2022-05-02 at 20:50 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 08:09:17 -0700, Brian Bunker wrote:
>>
>>> The handling of the ALUA transitioning state is currently broken.
>>> When
>>> a target goes into this state, it is expected that the target is
>>> allowed to stay in this state for the implicit transition timeout
>>> without a path failure.
> 
> Can you please show me a quote from the specs on which this expectation
> ("without a path failure") is based? AFAIK the SCSI specs don't say
> anything about device-mapper multipath semantics.
> 
>>> The handler has this logic, but it gets
>>> skipped currently.
>>>
>>> When the target transitions, there is in-flight I/O from the
>>> initiator. The first of these responses from the target will be a
>>> unit
>>> attention letting the initiator know that the ALUA state has
>>> changed.
>>> The remaining in-flight I/Os, before the initiator finds out that
>>> the
>>> portal state has changed, will return not ready, ALUA state is
>>> transitioning. The portal state will change to
>>> SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_TRANSITIONING. This will lead to all new I/O
>>> immediately failing the path unexpectedly. The path failure happens
>>> in
>>> less than a second instead of the expected successes until the
>>> transition timer is exceeded.
> 
> dm multipath has no concept of "transitioning" state. Path state can be
> either active or inactive. As Brian wrote, commands sent to the
> transitioning device will return NOT READY, TRANSITIONING, and require
> retries on the SCSI layer. If we know this in advance, why should we
> continue sending I/O down this semi-broken path? If other, healthy
> paths are available, why it would it not be the right thing to switch
> I/O to them ASAP?
> 
But we do, don't we?
Commands are being returned with the appropriate status, and 
dm-multipath should make the corresponding decisions here.
This patch just modifies the check when _sending_ commands; ie multipath 
had decided that the path is still usable.

Question rather would be why multipath did that; however that logic 
isn't modified here.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		           Kernel Storage Architect
hare@suse.de			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer