From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Ren Mingxin <renmx@cn.fujitsu.com>, Joern Engel <joern@logfs.org>,
James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: improved eh timeout handler
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:43:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5277C0AD.4090307@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1383576617.2485.6.camel@dabdike>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2084 bytes --]
On 11/04/2013 03:50 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 15:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 03:25 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:36 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/2013 04:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>> Looks reasonable to me, but a few minor nitpicks:
>>>>>
>>>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
>>>>>> + if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(sdev->host)) {
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have the implementation of scsi_host_eh_past_deadline in my
>>>>> local tree, but do we really need the host lock for it?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. The eh_deadline variable might be set from an interrupt context
>>>> or from userland, so we need to protect access to it.
>>>
>>> That's not really true. on all our supported architectures 32 bit
>>> reads/writes are atomic, which means that if one CPU writes a word at
>>> the same time another reads one, the reader is guaranteed to see either
>>> the old or the new data. Given the expense of lock cache line bouncing
>>> on the newer architectures, we really want to avoid a spinlock where
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> In this case, the problem with the implementation is that the writer
>>> might set eh_deadline to zero, but this is fixable in
>>> scsi_host_eh_past_deadline() by checking for zero before and after the
>>> time_before (for the zero to non-zero and non-zero to zero cases).
>>>
>> IE you mean something like that attached patch?
>
> Yes (except that there should be a comment explaining why we do the read
> twice), I think the cost of the extra read check is much less than the
> spinlock on all of our platforms.
>
So, this is what I've ended up with; sadly I had to use 'volatile'
here which checkpatch doesn't like.
I _could_ move eh_deadline to be atomic, that would avoid the
'volatile' setting. Feels like an overkill, though.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
[-- Attachment #2: 0003-scsi-Unlock-accesses-to-eh_deadline.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 7927 bytes --]
>From 283f1b50e833fad969323531ccd0ce889a5e4044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:23:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] scsi: Unlock accesses to eh_deadline
32bit accesses are guaranteed to be atomic, so we can remove
the spinlock when checking for eh_deadline. We only need to
make sure to catch any updates which might happened during
the call to time_before(); if so we just recheck with the
correct value.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
---
drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c | 54 +++++++++++++++--------------------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
index 7eecbb5..d122e89 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
@@ -91,13 +91,26 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(scsi_schedule_eh);
static int scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
{
- if (!shost->last_reset || !shost->eh_deadline)
- return 0;
+ volatile int eh_deadline;
- if (time_before(jiffies,
- shost->last_reset + shost->eh_deadline))
+recheck:
+ eh_deadline = shost->eh_deadline;
+ if (!shost->last_reset || !eh_deadline)
return 0;
+ /*
+ * 32bit accesses are guaranteed to be atomic
+ * (on all supported architectures), so instead
+ * of using a spinlock we can as well double check
+ * if eh_deadline has been modified after the
+ * time_before call; if so we need to recheck
+ * with the correct values.
+ */
+ if (time_before(jiffies, shost->last_reset + eh_deadline)) {
+ if (eh_deadline != shost->eh_deadline)
+ goto recheck;
+ return 0;
+ }
return 1;
}
@@ -111,18 +124,14 @@ scmd_eh_abort_handler(struct work_struct *work)
struct scsi_cmnd *scmd =
container_of(work, struct scsi_cmnd, abort_work.work);
struct scsi_device *sdev = scmd->device;
- unsigned long flags;
int rtn;
- spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(sdev->host)) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, scmd,
"scmd %p eh timeout, not aborting\n",
scmd));
} else {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, scmd,
"aborting command %p\n", scmd));
@@ -1132,7 +1141,6 @@ int scsi_eh_get_sense(struct list_head *work_q,
struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, *next;
struct Scsi_Host *shost;
int rtn;
- unsigned long flags;
list_for_each_entry_safe(scmd, next, work_q, eh_entry) {
if ((scmd->eh_eflags & SCSI_EH_CANCEL_CMD) ||
@@ -1140,16 +1148,13 @@ int scsi_eh_get_sense(struct list_head *work_q,
continue;
shost = scmd->device->host;
- spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(shost)) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
shost_printk(KERN_INFO, shost,
"skip %s, past eh deadline\n",
__func__));
break;
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(2, scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, scmd,
"%s: requesting sense\n",
current->comm));
@@ -1235,26 +1240,21 @@ static int scsi_eh_test_devices(struct list_head *cmd_list,
struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, *next;
struct scsi_device *sdev;
int finish_cmds;
- unsigned long flags;
while (!list_empty(cmd_list)) {
scmd = list_entry(cmd_list->next, struct scsi_cmnd, eh_entry);
sdev = scmd->device;
if (!try_stu) {
- spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(sdev->host)) {
/* Push items back onto work_q */
list_splice_init(cmd_list, work_q);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->host->host_lock,
- flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
shost_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev->host,
"skip %s, past eh deadline",
__func__));
break;
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->host->host_lock, flags);
}
finish_cmds = !scsi_device_online(scmd->device) ||
@@ -1295,15 +1295,12 @@ static int scsi_eh_abort_cmds(struct list_head *work_q,
LIST_HEAD(check_list);
int rtn;
struct Scsi_Host *shost;
- unsigned long flags;
list_for_each_entry_safe(scmd, next, work_q, eh_entry) {
if (!(scmd->eh_eflags & SCSI_EH_CANCEL_CMD))
continue;
shost = scmd->device->host;
- spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(shost)) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
list_splice_init(&check_list, work_q);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
shost_printk(KERN_INFO, shost,
@@ -1311,7 +1308,6 @@ static int scsi_eh_abort_cmds(struct list_head *work_q,
__func__));
return list_empty(work_q);
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3, printk("%s: aborting cmd:"
"0x%p\n", current->comm,
scmd));
@@ -1375,19 +1371,15 @@ static int scsi_eh_stu(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
{
struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, *stu_scmd, *next;
struct scsi_device *sdev;
- unsigned long flags;
shost_for_each_device(sdev, shost) {
- spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(shost)) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
shost_printk(KERN_INFO, shost,
"skip %s, past eh deadline\n",
__func__));
break;
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
stu_scmd = NULL;
list_for_each_entry(scmd, work_q, eh_entry)
if (scmd->device == sdev && SCSI_SENSE_VALID(scmd) &&
@@ -1441,20 +1433,16 @@ static int scsi_eh_bus_device_reset(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
{
struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, *bdr_scmd, *next;
struct scsi_device *sdev;
- unsigned long flags;
int rtn;
shost_for_each_device(sdev, shost) {
- spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(shost)) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
shost_printk(KERN_INFO, shost,
"skip %s, past eh deadline\n",
__func__));
break;
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
bdr_scmd = NULL;
list_for_each_entry(scmd, work_q, eh_entry)
if (scmd->device == sdev) {
@@ -1515,11 +1503,8 @@ static int scsi_eh_target_reset(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
struct scsi_cmnd *next, *scmd;
int rtn;
unsigned int id;
- unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(shost)) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
/* push back on work queue for further processing */
list_splice_init(&check_list, work_q);
list_splice_init(&tmp_list, work_q);
@@ -1529,7 +1514,6 @@ static int scsi_eh_target_reset(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
__func__));
return list_empty(work_q);
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
scmd = list_entry(tmp_list.next, struct scsi_cmnd, eh_entry);
id = scmd_id(scmd);
@@ -1574,7 +1558,6 @@ static int scsi_eh_bus_reset(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
LIST_HEAD(check_list);
unsigned int channel;
int rtn;
- unsigned long flags;
/*
* we really want to loop over the various channels, and do this on
@@ -1584,9 +1567,7 @@ static int scsi_eh_bus_reset(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
*/
for (channel = 0; channel <= shost->max_channel; channel++) {
- spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
if (scsi_host_eh_past_deadline(shost)) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
list_splice_init(&check_list, work_q);
SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
shost_printk(KERN_INFO, shost,
@@ -1594,7 +1575,6 @@ static int scsi_eh_bus_reset(struct Scsi_Host *shost,
__func__));
return list_empty(work_q);
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
chan_scmd = NULL;
list_for_each_entry(scmd, work_q, eh_entry) {
--
1.7.12.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-04 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-31 13:02 [PATCHv8 0/3] New EH command timeout handler Hannes Reinecke
2013-10-31 13:02 ` [PATCH 1/3] scsi: Fix erratic device offline during EH Hannes Reinecke
2013-10-31 13:02 ` [PATCH 2/3] scsi: improved eh timeout handler Hannes Reinecke
2013-10-31 15:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-04 13:36 ` Hannes Reinecke
2013-11-04 14:25 ` James Bottomley
2013-11-04 14:46 ` Hannes Reinecke
2013-11-04 14:50 ` James Bottomley
2013-11-04 15:43 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2013-11-05 1:07 ` James Bottomley
2013-11-01 6:10 ` Ren Mingxin
2013-10-31 13:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] scsi: Update documentation Hannes Reinecke
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-09-02 11:58 [PATCHv6 0/3] New EH command timeout handler Hannes Reinecke
2013-09-02 11:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] scsi: improved eh " Hannes Reinecke
2013-09-11 9:16 ` Ren Mingxin
2013-09-12 20:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2013-09-20 7:59 ` Ren Mingxin
2013-10-02 16:24 ` Hannes Reinecke
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=5277C0AD.4090307@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=james.smart@emulex.com \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=joern@logfs.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=renmx@cn.fujitsu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).