From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] scsi: Do not wait for a request in scsi_eh_lock_door()
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:18:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b56cf3af-940f-62ed-2a79-eb80599e2f44@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6e5fbc73-881e-69c7-54ce-381b8b695b3c@acm.org>
On 12/3/20 6:10 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/1/20 11:06 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 11/30/20 3:46 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>>> index d94449188270..6de6e1bf3dcb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>>> @@ -1993,7 +1993,12 @@ static void scsi_eh_lock_door(struct
>>> scsi_device *sdev)
>>> struct request *req;
>>> struct scsi_request *rq;
>>> - req = blk_get_request(sdev->request_queue, REQ_OP_SCSI_IN, 0);
>>> + /*
>>> + * It is not guaranteed that a request is available nor that
>>> + * sdev->request_queue is unfrozen. Hence the BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT
>>> below.
>>> + */
>>> + req = blk_get_request(sdev->request_queue, REQ_OP_SCSI_IN,
>>> + BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT);
>>> if (IS_ERR(req))
>>> return;
>>> rq = scsi_req(req);
>>>
>>
>> Well ... had been thinking about that one, too.
>> The idea of this function is that prior to SCSI EH the device was locked
>> via scsi_set_medium_removal(). And during SCSI EH the device might have
>> become unlocked, so we need to lock it again.
>> However, scsi_set_medium_removal() not only issues the
>> PREVENT_ALLOW_MEDIUM_REMOVAL command, but also sets the 'locked' flag
>> based on the result.
>> So if we fail to get a request here, shouldn't we unset the 'locked'
>> flag, too?
>
> Probably not. My interpretation of the 'locked' flag is that it
> represents the door state before error handling began. The following
> code in the SCSI error handler restores the door state after a bus reset:
>
> if (scsi_device_online(sdev) && sdev->was_reset && sdev->locked) {
> scsi_eh_lock_door(sdev);
> sdev->was_reset = 0;
> }
>
>> And what does happen if we fail here? There is no return value, hence
>> SCSI EH might run to completion, and the system will continue
>> with an unlocked door ...
>> Not sure if that's a good idea.
>
> How about applying the following patch on top of patch 5/9?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
> index 6de6e1bf3dcb..feac7262e40e 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
> @@ -1988,7 +1988,7 @@ static void eh_lock_door_done(struct request *req, blk_status_t status)
> * We queue up an asynchronous "ALLOW MEDIUM REMOVAL" request on the
> * head of the devices request queue, and continue.
> */
> -static void scsi_eh_lock_door(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> +static int scsi_eh_lock_door(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> {
> struct request *req;
> struct scsi_request *rq;
> @@ -2000,7 +2000,7 @@ static void scsi_eh_lock_door(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> req = blk_get_request(sdev->request_queue, REQ_OP_SCSI_IN,
> BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT);
> if (IS_ERR(req))
> - return;
> + return PTR_ERR(req);
> rq = scsi_req(req);
>
> rq->cmd[0] = ALLOW_MEDIUM_REMOVAL;
> @@ -2016,6 +2016,7 @@ static void scsi_eh_lock_door(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> rq->retries = 5;
>
> blk_execute_rq_nowait(req->q, NULL, req, 1, eh_lock_door_done);
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -2037,8 +2038,8 @@ static void scsi_restart_operations(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
> * is no point trying to lock the door of an off-line device.
> */
> shost_for_each_device(sdev, shost) {
> - if (scsi_device_online(sdev) && sdev->was_reset && sdev->locked) {
> - scsi_eh_lock_door(sdev);
> + if (scsi_device_online(sdev) && sdev->was_reset &&
> + sdev->locked && scsi_eh_lock_door(sdev) == 0) {
> sdev->was_reset = 0;
> }
> }
>
I probably didn't make myself clear.
As per SBC (in this case, sbc3r36) the effects of
PREVENT_ALLOW_MEDIUM_REMOVAL are being reset by a successfull LUN Reset,
Hard Reset, Power/On Reset, or an I_T Nexus loss. Which incidentally
maps nicely onto SCSI EH, so after a successful SCSI EH the door will be
unlocked (which is why we need to call scsi_eh_lock_door()).
In the SCSI midlayer this state is being reflected by the 'locked' flag.
Now, if scsi_eh_lock_door() is _not_ being executed due to a
blk_get_request() failure, the device remains unlocked, and as such the
'locked' flag would need to be _unset_.
So I was thinking more along these lines:
@@ -2030,7 +2037,8 @@ static void scsi_restart_operations(struct
Scsi_Host *shost)
*/
shost_for_each_device(sdev, shost) {
if (scsi_device_online(sdev) && sdev->was_reset &&
sdev->locked) {
- scsi_eh_lock_door(sdev);
+ if (scsi_eh_lock_door(sdev) < 0)
+ sdev->locked = 0;
sdev->was_reset = 0;
}
}
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-03 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-30 2:46 [PATCH v4 0/9] Rework runtime suspend and SPI domain validation Bart Van Assche
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 1/9] block: Fix a race in the runtime power management code Bart Van Assche
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 2/9] block: Introduce BLK_MQ_REQ_PM Bart Van Assche
2020-12-01 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-02 6:50 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 3/9] ide: Do not set the RQF_PREEMPT flag for sense requests Bart Van Assche
2020-12-01 11:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-02 6:52 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 4/9] ide: Mark power management requests with RQF_PM instead of RQF_PREEMPT Bart Van Assche
2020-12-01 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-02 6:53 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 5/9] scsi: Do not wait for a request in scsi_eh_lock_door() Bart Van Assche
2020-12-02 7:06 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-12-03 5:10 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-12-03 7:18 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2020-12-03 7:27 ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04 16:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 6/9] scsi_transport_spi: Set RQF_PM for domain validation commands Bart Van Assche
2020-12-01 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 7/9] scsi: Only process PM requests if rpm_status != RPM_ACTIVE Bart Van Assche
2020-12-01 11:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-02 7:14 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 8/9] block: Remove RQF_PREEMPT and BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT Bart Van Assche
2020-12-01 11:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-02 7:15 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-11-30 2:46 ` [PATCH v4 9/9] block: Do not accept any requests while suspended Bart Van Assche
2020-12-02 7:16 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-12-02 1:51 ` [PATCH v4 0/9] Rework runtime suspend and SPI domain validation Martin K. Petersen
2020-12-06 0:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-08 1:56 ` Martin K. Petersen
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=b56cf3af-940f-62ed-2a79-eb80599e2f44@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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).