From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, hreitz@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
bmarzins@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] file-posix: Probe paths and retry SG_IO on potential path errors
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 10:03:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250520140339.GC82528@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aCYCFrh_As6XuPQj@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3013 bytes --]
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 05:02:46PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 15.05.2025 um 16:01 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 10:15:53AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > Am 13.05.2025 um 15:51 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > > When scsi-block is used on a host multipath device, it runs into the
> > > > > problem that the kernel dm-mpath doesn't know anything about SCSI or
> > > > > SG_IO and therefore can't decide if a SG_IO request returned an error
> > > > > and needs to be retried on a different path. Instead of getting working
> > > > > failover, an error is returned to scsi-block and handled according to
> > > > > the configured error policy. Obviously, this is not what users want,
> > > > > they want working failover.
> > > > >
> > > > > QEMU can parse the SG_IO result and determine whether this could have
> > > > > been a path error, but just retrying the same request could just send it
> > > > > to the same failing path again and result in the same error.
> > > > >
> > > > > With a kernel that supports the DM_MPATH_PROBE_PATHS ioctl on dm-mpath
> > > > > block devices (queued in the device mapper tree for Linux 6.16), we can
> > > > > tell the kernel to probe all paths and tell us if any usable paths
> > > > > remained. If so, we can now retry the SG_IO ioctl and expect it to be
> > > > > sent to a working path.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > block/file-posix.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > Maybe the probability of retry success would be higher with a delay so
> > > > that intermittent issues have time to resolve themselves. Either way,
> > > > the patch looks good.
> > >
> > > I don't think adding a delay here would be helpful. The point of
> > > multipath isn't that you wait until a bad path comes back, but that you
> > > just switch to a different path until it is restored.
> >
> > That's not what this loop does. DM_MPATH_PROBE_PATHS probes all paths
> > and fails when no paths are available. The delay would only apply in the
> > case when there are no paths available.
> >
> > If the point is not to wait until some path comes back, then why loop at
> > all?
>
> DM_MPATH_PROBE_PATHS can only send I/O to paths in the active path
> group, so it doesn't fail over to different path groups. If there are no
> usable paths left in the current path group, but there are some in
> another one, then the ioctl returns 0 and the next SG_IO would switch to
> a different path group, which may or may not succeed. If it fails, we
> have to probe the paths in that group, too.
This wasn't obvious to me, can that be emphasized in the code via naming
or comments? About retrying up to 5 times: is the assumption that there
will be 5 or fewer path groups?
Stefan
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-20 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-13 11:37 [PATCH] file-posix: Probe paths and retry SG_IO on potential path errors Kevin Wolf
2025-05-13 13:51 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-05-15 8:15 ` Kevin Wolf
2025-05-15 14:01 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-05-15 15:02 ` Kevin Wolf
2025-05-20 14:03 ` Stefan Hajnoczi [this message]
2025-05-21 17:46 ` Kevin Wolf
2025-05-21 18:23 ` Benjamin Marzinski
2025-05-14 13:43 ` Hanna Czenczek
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=20250520140339.GC82528@fedora \
--to=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=bmarzins@redhat.com \
--cc=hreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/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).