All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.


  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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.