From: Wei Fang <fangwei1@huawei.com>
To: James Bottomley <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, emilne@redhat.com
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>,
"martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
chenzengxi@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: avoid a permanent stop of the scsi device's request queue
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:22:45 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5848D205.8060007@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1481164381.2354.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hi, James, Ewan,
On 2016/12/8 10:33, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 10:28 +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
>> Hi, James, Ewan,
>>
>> On 2016/12/8 7:43, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 15:30 -0500, Ewan D. Milne wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 12:09 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>> Hm, it looks like the state set in scsi_sysfs_add_sdev() is
>>>>> bogus.
>>>>> We expect the state to have been properly set before that (in
>>>>> scsi_add_lun), so can we not simply remove it?
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was considering that, but...
>>>>
>>>> enum scsi_device_state {
>>>> SDEV_CREATED = 1, /* device created but not added
>>>> to
>>>> sysfs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Only internal commands allowed
>>>> (for inq) */
>>>>
>>>> So it seems the intent was for the state to not change until
>>>> then.
>>>
>>> I think this is historical. There was a change somewhere that
>>> moved
>>> the sysfs state handling out of the sdev stat to is_visible, so the
>>> sdev state no-longer reflects it.
>>>
>>>> The call to set the SDEV_RUNNING state earlier in scsi_add_lun()
>>>> was added with:
>>>>
>>>> commit 6f4267e3bd1211b3d09130e626b0b3d885077610
>>>> Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
>>>> Date: Fri Aug 22 16:53:31 2008 -0500
>>>>
>>>> [SCSI] Update the SCSI state model to allow blocking in the
>>>> created state
>>>>
>>>> Which allows the device to go into ->BLOCK (which is needed,
>>>> since it
>>>> actually happens).
>>>>
>>>> Should we remove the call from scsi_sysfs_add_sdev() and change
>>>> the
>>>> comment in scsi_device.h to reflect the intent?
>>
>> This sounds reasonable.
>>
>>> Assuming someone with the problem actually tests it, yes.
>>
>> This problem can be stably reproduced on Zengxi Chen's machine, who
>> reported the bug. We can test it on this machine.
>>
>> The patch is as below, just for sure:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
>> index 0734927..82dfe07 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
>> @@ -1204,10 +1204,6 @@ int scsi_sysfs_add_sdev(struct scsi_device
>> *sdev)
>> struct request_queue *rq = sdev->request_queue;
>> struct scsi_target *starget = sdev->sdev_target;
>>
>> - error = scsi_device_set_state(sdev, SDEV_RUNNING);
>> - if (error)
>> - return error;
>> -
I looked through those code and found that if we fix this bug
by removing setting the state in scsi_sysfs_add_sdev(), it
can't be fixed completely:
scsi_device_set_state(sdev, SDEV_RUNNING) in scsi_add_lun() and
scsi_device_set_state(sdev, SDEV_CREATED_BLOCK) in scsi_internal_device_block()
can be called simultaneously. Because there is no synchronization
between scsi_device_set_state(), those calls may both return
success, and the state may be SDEV_RUNNING after that, and the
device queue is stopped.
Thanks,
Wei
> That's it, although not the second hunk: CREATED still means device not
> added to sysfs. It's just that RUNNING now doesn't mean it is.
>
> James
>
>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-08 3:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-06 9:12 [PATCH] scsi: avoid a permanent stop of the scsi device's request queue Wei Fang
2016-12-06 15:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-12-07 1:20 ` Wei Fang
2016-12-07 2:45 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-12-07 3:41 ` Wei Fang
2016-12-07 4:40 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-12-07 6:59 ` Wei Fang
2016-12-07 16:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-12-07 16:55 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-12-07 17:40 ` Ewan D. Milne
2016-12-07 18:16 ` James Bottomley
2016-12-07 19:24 ` Ewan D. Milne
2016-12-07 20:09 ` James Bottomley
2016-12-07 20:30 ` Ewan D. Milne
2016-12-07 23:43 ` James Bottomley
2016-12-08 2:28 ` Wei Fang
2016-12-08 2:33 ` James Bottomley
2016-12-08 3:22 ` Wei Fang [this message]
2016-12-08 6:38 ` Wei Fang
2016-12-08 14:04 ` Ewan D. Milne
2016-12-08 15:39 ` James Bottomley
2016-12-09 1:08 ` Wei Fang
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=5848D205.8060007@huawei.com \
--to=fangwei1@huawei.com \
--cc=bart.vanassche@sandisk.com \
--cc=chenzengxi@huawei.com \
--cc=emilne@redhat.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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).