From: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
To: Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@parallels.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
Roland Dreier <roland@purestorage.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SCSI] Wake blockdev queue in scsi_internal_device_unblock() for SDEV_RUNNING
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:08:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <513E1DB5.8040404@cs.wisc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1361814905-7201-1-git-send-email-roland@kernel.org>
On 02/25/2013 11:55 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> From: Roland Dreier <roland@purestorage.com>
>
> If a SCSI device's old state is already SDEV_RUNNING and we're moving
> to the same SDEV_RUNNING state, still wake the blockdev queue in
> scsi_internal_device_unblock(). This fixes a case where we silently
> hang SCSI commands forever during device discovery. One way this can
> happen is when mpt2sas is discovering a reasonably big SAS topology,
> and the sd driver has queued up a bunch of sd_probe_async() instances
> that are queueing SCSI commands to various devices.
>
> If at the same time a SAS fabric event goes to the HBA, what can
> happen is the following:
>
> - mpt2sas calls _scsih_block_io_all_device() -> scsi_internal_device_block(sdev)
>
> (In response to some HBA firmware event like MPI2_EVENT_SAS_BROADCAST_PRIMITIVE)
> Now sdev state is SDEV_BLOCK and blockdev queue has QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED set.
>
> - Someone like scsi_add_lun() calls scsi_device_set_state(sdev, SDEV_RUNNING)
>
> (SCSI bus scanning runs asynchronously to firmware event handling)
> Now sdev state is SDEV_RUNNING but blockdev queue still has QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED set
Is this a valid state change? Should it be failed in
scsi_device_set_state when we try to go from SDEV_BLOCKED ->
SDEV_RUNNING? I am not sure if it make senses to ever have a device in
SDEV_RUNNING but have the stopped queue bit set.
It used to be that scsi_internal_device_unblock called
scsi_device_set_state so the transition from SDEV_BLOCKED to
SDEV_RUNNUNG had to be a valid transition. scsi_internal_device_unblock
then started the queue. I am not sure if the sequence you were hitting
was actually a transition that was intended or just worked by accident.
Should we be failing the above call to scsi_device_set_state, and then
the call to scsi_internal_device_unblock would work as expected.
OTOH, your patch makes the block/unblock API easier to use.
>
> - mpt2sas calls _scsih_ublock_io_all_device() -> scsi_internal_device_unblock(sdev, SDEV_RUNNING)
>
> (Finishes handling the firmware event)
>
> With the old scsi_lib code, scsi_internal_device_unblock() will return
> an error at this point because the sdev state is already SDEV_RUNNING.
> This means we skip the call to blk_start_queue() and never actually
> start executing commands again.
>
> Fix this by still going ahead and finishing scsi_internal_device_unblock()
> even if the sdev state is already SDEV_RUNNING.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <roland@purestorage.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> index 765398c..75108ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> @@ -2495,7 +2495,9 @@ scsi_internal_device_unblock(struct scsi_device *sdev,
> else
> sdev->sdev_state = SDEV_CREATED;
> } else if (sdev->sdev_state != SDEV_CANCEL &&
> - sdev->sdev_state != SDEV_OFFLINE)
> + sdev->sdev_state != SDEV_OFFLINE &&
> + (sdev->sdev_state != SDEV_RUNNING ||
> + new_state != SDEV_RUNNING))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-11 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-25 17:55 [PATCH] [SCSI] Wake blockdev queue in scsi_internal_device_unblock() for SDEV_RUNNING Roland Dreier
2013-03-11 17:50 ` Roland Dreier
2013-03-11 18:08 ` Mike Christie [this message]
2013-03-11 18:21 ` Roland Dreier
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=513E1DB5.8040404@cs.wisc.edu \
--to=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=JBottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roland@kernel.org \
--cc=roland@purestorage.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