public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	James Bottomley <james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Brian Bunker <brian@purestorage.com>,
	Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_dh_alua: mark port group as failed after ALUA transitioning timeout
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 14:07:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <afa5f370-4e16-319f-ded8-49e11f12ff56@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37b61d6b956c18bf4a56d14b5746dab2719ef20d.camel@suse.com>

On 5/25/22 13:20, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 10:11 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> When ALUA transitioning timeout triggers the path group state must
>> be considered invalid. So add a new flag ALUA_PG_FAILED to indicate
>> that the path state isn't necessarily valid, and keep the existing
>> path state until we get a valid response from a RTPG.
>>
>> Cc: Brian Bunker <brian@purestorage.com>
>> Cc: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
>> ---
>>   drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c | 24 +++++++-------------
>> --
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c
>> b/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c
>> index 1d9be771f3ee..6921490a5e65 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c
>> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
>>   #define ALUA_PG_RUN_RTPG               0x10
>>   #define ALUA_PG_RUN_STPG               0x20
>>   #define ALUA_PG_RUNNING                        0x40
>> +#define ALUA_PG_FAILED                 0x80
>>   
>>   static uint optimize_stpg;
>>   module_param(optimize_stpg, uint, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR);
>> @@ -420,7 +421,7 @@ static enum scsi_disposition
>> alua_check_sense(struct scsi_device *sdev,
>>                           */
>>                          rcu_read_lock();
>>                          pg = rcu_dereference(h->pg);
>> -                       if (pg)
>> +                       if (pg && !(pg->flags & ALUA_PG_FAILED))
>>                                  pg->state =
>> SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_TRANSITIONING;
>>                          rcu_read_unlock();
>>                          alua_check(sdev, false);
> 
> You still return NEEDS_RETRY from alua_check_sense(), even if
> ALUA_PG_FAILED is set?
> 
>> @@ -694,7 +695,7 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev,
>> struct alua_port_group *pg)
>>   
>>    skip_rtpg:
>>          spin_lock_irqsave(&pg->lock, flags);
>> -       if (transitioning_sense)
>> +       if (transitioning_sense && !(pg->flags & ALUA_PG_FAILED))
>>                  pg->state = SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_TRANSITIONING;
>>   
>>          if (group_id_old != pg->group_id || state_old != pg->state ||
>> @@ -718,23 +719,10 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev,
>> struct alua_port_group *pg)
>>                          pg->interval = ALUA_RTPG_RETRY_DELAY;
>>                          err = SCSI_DH_RETRY;
>>                  } else {
>> -                       struct alua_dh_data *h;
>> -
>> -                       /* Transitioning time exceeded, set port to
>> standby */
>> +                       /* Transitioning time exceeded, mark pg as
>> failed */
>>                          err = SCSI_DH_IO;
>> -                       pg->state = SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_STANDBY;
>> +                       pg->flags |= ALUA_PG_FAILED;
>>                          pg->expiry = 0;
>> -                       rcu_read_lock();
>> -                       list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &pg->dh_list,
>> node) {
>> -                               if (!h->sdev)
>> -                                       continue;
>> -                               h->sdev->access_state =
>> -                                       (pg->state &
>> SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_MASK);
>> -                               if (pg->pref)
>> -                                       h->sdev->access_state |=
>> -
>>                                                 SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_PREFE
>> RRED;
>> -                       }
>> -                       rcu_read_unlock();
>>                  }
>>                  break;
>>          case SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_OFFLINE:
>> @@ -746,6 +734,8 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev,
>> struct alua_port_group *pg)
>>                  /* Useable path if active */
>>                  err = SCSI_DH_OK;
>>                  pg->expiry = 0;
>> +               /* RTPG succeeded, clear ALUA_PG_FAILED */
>> +               pg->flags &= ~ALUA_PG_FAILED;
> 
> Shouldn't this be done for any state except TRANSITIONING?
> 
Why, but it does.
We're only entering this block if the state is not TRANSITIONING.
(It's part of a 'switch' statement)

> Btw I've re-read SPC6 and found "The IMPLICIT TRANSITION TIME field
> indicates the minimum amount of time in seconds the application client
> should wait prior to timing out an implicit state transition (see
> 5.18.2.3)".
> 
> This is unclear to me. "minimum amount of time" suggests that the host
> could decide to wait longer until it times out the transition. Worse,
> the spec doesn't clearly define when the transition is supposed to have
> started. From the host's PoV it makes sense to assume the start time is
> when it first encounters either TRANSITIONING from an RTPG, or NOT
> READY / 04 / 0a from a regular I/O, which is what we currently do. But
> the spec is remarkably unclear about it. Finally, the spec explicitly
> says that the timeout applies only to implicit transitions, without
> saying what to do in the case of an explicit transition...
> 
Why, but it does; "5.15.2.5 Transitions between target port asymmetric 
access states" speaks at length what should happen when transitions 
fail. Problem is, a timeout expiring is something outside the spec, so 
one can't be sure that the array does what's expected here.

But the one key takeaway is that any port in transitioning is allowed to 
ignore TMFs, so any SCSI EH is pointless anyway.

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

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-25 12:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-25  8:11 [PATCH] scsi_dh_alua: mark port group as failed after ALUA transitioning timeout Hannes Reinecke
2022-05-25 11:20 ` Martin Wilck
2022-05-25 12:07   ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2022-05-25 19:33     ` Martin Wilck
2022-06-08  7:32       ` Martin Wilck

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=afa5f370-4e16-319f-ded8-49e11f12ff56@suse.de \
    --to=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=brian@purestorage.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mwilck@suse.com \
    --cc=mwilck@suse.de \
    /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