From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Joe Lawrence <jdl1291@gmail.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Remove two cancel_delayed_work() calls from the error handler
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:08:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53842BE7.5060304@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53842545.50502@suse.de>
On 05/27/14 07:40, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 05:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>> index f17aa7a..5232583 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ scsi_abort_command(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
>> SCSI_LOG_ERROR_RECOVERY(3,
>> scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, scmd,
>> "scmd %p previous abort failed\n", scmd));
>> - cancel_delayed_work(&scmd->abort_work);
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(delayed_work_pending(&scmd->abort_work));
>> return FAILED;
>> }
>>
>>
> The first bit is okay, the second isn't.
>
> The second bit is for these cases where the abort got scheduled (in
> scsi_abort_command()), but the workqueue didn't get executed by the time
> the next timeout occured.
> I know, highly unlikely, but there is no safeguarding that it _cannot_
> happen.
> So the second cancel_delayed_work() has to stay.
But how could that next timeout occur while abort_work is still pending
? The block layer removes a request from the timeout list before
invoking the timeout handler (see also blk_rq_check_expired()). This
means that no block layer timers are active after abort_work has been
scheduled and before scmd_eh_abort_handler() is called. This also means
that a second timeout can only occur after a SCSI command has been
reinserted to a SCSI device queue. And such a reinsertion can only occur
after scmd_eh_abort_handler() has started. The pending bit is cleared
from a work struct before the associated handler is invoked. This is why
I think the above cancel_delayed_work() statement is not necessary. Or
did I perhaps overlook something ?
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-27 6:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-26 15:12 Make SCSI error handler code easier to understand Bart Van Assche
2014-05-26 15:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] Remove two cancel_delayed_work() calls from the error handler Bart Van Assche
2014-05-26 15:15 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: Introduce blk_rq_completed() Bart Van Assche
2014-05-26 15:27 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 7:49 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27 7:52 ` hch
2014-05-27 8:00 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 8:23 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 9:00 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27 10:21 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 10:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27 10:59 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 11:13 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27 11:26 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 11:52 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27 11:57 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 5:40 ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-05-26 15:23 ` [PATCH 1/3] Remove two cancel_delayed_work() calls from the error handler Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-26 15:25 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 8:06 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27 8:09 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 8:36 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27 8:56 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-27 9:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-27 5:40 ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-05-27 6:08 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2014-05-27 6:22 ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-05-26 15:15 ` [PATCH 3/3] Make SCSI error handler code easier to understand Bart Van Assche
2014-05-27 5:42 ` Hannes Reinecke
2014-05-28 20:15 ` Joe Lawrence
2014-05-29 11:33 ` 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=53842BE7.5060304@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=jdl1291@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.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).