All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>
To: Wenchao Hao <haowenchao@huawei.com>,
	"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
	Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@broadcom.com>,
	Nilesh Javali <njavali@marvell.com>,
	GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@marvell.com,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@suse.com>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>,
	Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>, Wu Bo <wubo40@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Do not break scan luns loop if add single lun failed
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 18:55:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aa72bd76-2af5-202d-8a2c-afb5a700b6c0@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211225232911.1117843-1-haowenchao@huawei.com>

On 12/26/21 00:29, Wenchao Hao wrote:
> Failed to add a single lun does not mean all luns are unaccessible,
> if we break the scan luns loop, the other luns reported by REPORT LUNS
> command would not be probed any more.
> 
> In this case, we might loss some luns which are accessible.

Could you please add more details about the specific use case, where this 
actually was a problem, for my understanding?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Wenchao Hao <haowenchao@huawei.com>
> ---
>   drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> index 23e1c0acdeae..fee7ce082103 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> @@ -1476,13 +1476,13 @@ static int scsi_report_lun_scan(struct scsi_target *starget, blist_flags_t bflag
>   				lun, NULL, NULL, rescan, NULL);
>   			if (res == SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE) {
>   				/*
> -				 * Got some results, but now none, abort.
> +				 * Got some results, but now none, abort this lun

abort => skip ?

>   				 */
>   				sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev,
>   					"Unexpected response"
>   					" from lun %llu while scanning, scan"
>   					" aborted\n", (unsigned long long)lun);

That message would no longer be correct with your change, as it would not abort 
the scan any more.

> -				break;
> +				continue;
>   			}
>   		}
>   	}


Wouldn't this change existing semantics for LLDDs intentionally returning 
-ENXIO from their slave_alloc() callback in certain cases?:


> static struct scsi_device *scsi_alloc_sdev(struct scsi_target *starget,
...
> 	if (shost->hostt->slave_alloc) {
> 		ret = shost->hostt->slave_alloc(sdev);
> 		if (ret) {
> 			/*
> 			 * if LLDD reports slave not present, don't clutter
> 			 * console with alloc failure messages
> 			 */
> 			if (ret == -ENXIO)
> 				display_failure_msg = 0;
> 			goto out_device_destroy;
...
> out_device_destroy:
> 	__scsi_remove_device(sdev);
> out:
> 	if (display_failure_msg)
> 		printk(ALLOC_FAILURE_MSG, __func__);
> 	return NULL;


scsi_probe_and_add_lun() [such as called by scsi_report_lun_scan() for the case 
at hand] converts this case into a SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE return value.

> static int scsi_probe_and_add_lun(struct scsi_target *starget,
...
> 	int res = SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE, result_len = 256;
...
> 		sdev = scsi_alloc_sdev(starget, lun, hostdata);
> 	if (!sdev)
> 		goto out;
...
>  out:
> 	return res;


Such as being used by zfcp:

> static int zfcp_scsi_slave_alloc(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> {
...
> 	unit = zfcp_unit_find(port, zfcp_scsi_dev_lun(sdev));
> 	if (unit)
> 		put_device(&unit->dev);
> 
> 	if (!unit && !(allow_lun_scan && npiv)) {
> 		put_device(&port->dev);
> 		return -ENXIO;
                        ^^^^^^

which implements an initiator-based LUN masking that is necessary for shared 
HBAs virtualized without NPIV.
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/linux-on-systems?topic=devices-manually-configured-fcp-luns

While things might still work, as zfcp now "just" gets (much) more callbacks to 
slave_alloc() it has to end with -ENXIO, the user may get flooded with the 
error(!) sdev_printk on "Unexpected response from LUN ..." in 
scsi_report_lun_scan().
In the worst case, we could get this message now 64k - 1 times in a zfcp 
scenario connected to IBM DS8000 storage being able to map (all) 64k volumes to 
a single initiator (HBA), where the user via zfcp sysfs decided to use only the 
first lun reported (for the vHBA).

Other LLLDs also seem to intentionally return -ENXIO from slave_alloc() 
callbacks, such as but not limited to lpfc or qla2xxx:

> int fc_slave_alloc(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> {
> 	struct fc_rport *rport = starget_to_rport(scsi_target(sdev));
> 
> 	if (!rport || fc_remote_port_chkready(rport))
> 		return -ENXIO;

> static int
> qla2xxx_slave_alloc(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> {
> 	struct fc_rport *rport = starget_to_rport(scsi_target(sdev));
> 
> 	if (!rport || fc_remote_port_chkready(rport))
> 		return -ENXIO;


-- 
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Kind regards
Steffen Maier

Linux on IBM Z and LinuxONE

https://www.ibm.com/privacy/us/en/
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gregor Pillen
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294

  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-30 18:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-25 23:29 [PATCH] scsi: Do not break scan luns loop if add single lun failed Wenchao Hao
2021-12-30 17:55 ` Steffen Maier [this message]
2022-01-04 12:10   ` Wenchao Hao
2022-01-12  2:28 ` Wenchao Hao

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=aa72bd76-2af5-202d-8a2c-afb5a700b6c0@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=maier@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@marvell.com \
    --cc=bblock@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=dick.kennedy@broadcom.com \
    --cc=haowenchao@huawei.com \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=james.smart@broadcom.com \
    --cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linfeilong@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=martin.wilck@suse.com \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=njavali@marvell.com \
    --cc=wubo40@huawei.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.