Re: [PATCH v2 08/14] nvme: Implement cross-controller reset recovery

Mohamed Khalfella
2026-02-10T23:25:56Z

On Tue 2026-02-10 14:49:15 -0800, James Smart wrote:
> On 2/10/2026 2:27 PM, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> > On Tue 2026-02-10 14:09:27 -0800, James Smart wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2026 2:34 PM, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> +unsigned long nvme_fence_ctrl(struct nvme_ctrl *ictrl)
> >>> +{
> >>> + unsigned long deadline, now, timeout;
> >>> + struct nvme_ctrl *sctrl;
> >>> + u32 min_cntlid = 0;
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + timeout = nvme_fence_timeout_ms(ictrl);
> >>> + dev_info(ictrl->device, "attempting CCR, timeout %lums\n", timeout);
> >>> +
> >>> + now = jiffies;
> >>> + deadline = now + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout);
> >>> + while (time_before(now, deadline)) {
> >>
> >> Q: don't we have something to identify the controller's subsystem
> >> supports CCR before we starting selecting controllers and sending CCR ?
> >>
> >> I would think on older devices that don't support it we should be
> >> skipping this loop. The loop could delay the Time-Based delay without
> >> any CCR.
> >
> > I do not think we have something that identifies CCR support at
> > subsystem level. The spec defines CCRL at the controller level. The loop
> > should not that bad. nvme_find_ctrl_ccr() should return NULL if CCR is
> > not supported and nvme_fence_ctrl() will return immediately.
> >
> >>
> >> -- james
> >>
>
> I would think CCRL on the failed controller would be enough to assume
> the subsystem supports it.

ictrl->ccr_limit is a good indication that subsystem supports CCR. I do
not think it is enough though. I say that for two reasons:

- May be this controller does not support CCR but others do on the same
subsystem. There is nothing prevents subsystem from putting a cap of
CCR at subsytem level.
- May be this controller supports CCR command but not now because all
CCR slots are used now. This can happen in the case of cascading
failure.

>
> I'm not worried about the coding on the host is so bad. It's more the
> multiple paths that must have cmds sent to them and getting error
> responses for unknown cmds (should be responded to ok, but you never
> know) as well as creating conditions for other errors where there will
> be no return for it - e.g. other paths losing connectivity while the ccr
> outstanding, etc. yes, they all have to work, but why bother adding
> these flows to an old controller that would never do CCR ?

If nvme_find_ctrl_ccr() returns a source controller to use then we know
the controller supports CCR and does have an available slot to process
this CCR request. I do not see how this code will send CCR request to an
old controller that does not know about CCR command.

I am not fully opposed against using ictrl->ccr_limit to return early. I
do not see the need for it. If you feel strongly about it I can update
nvme_fence_ctrl() to do so.