From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>,
James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] nvme-fabrics: short-circuit connect retries
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 13:30:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <432a39d5-6d08-4d38-a357-7c8d9123189a@grimberg.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72c1d3a8-14ad-43e8-a68a-25be903698c4@suse.de>
On 07/03/2024 12:37, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 3/7/24 09:00, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>
>> On 05/03/2024 10:00, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>> I've picked up Hannes' DNR patches. In short the make the transports
>>> behave the same way when the DNR bit set on a re-connect attempt. We
>>> had a discussion this
>>> topic in the past and if I got this right we all agreed is that the
>>> host should honor the DNR bit on a connect attempt [1]
>> Umm, I don't recall this being conclusive though. The spec ought to
>> be clearer here I think.
>
> I've asked the NVMexpress fmds group, and the response was pretty
> unanimous that the DNR bit on connect should be evaluated.
OK.
>
>>>
>>> The nvme/045 test case (authentication tests) in blktests is a good
>>> test case for this after extending it slightly. TCP and RDMA try to
>>> reconnect with an
>>> invalid key over and over again, while loop and FC stop after the
>>> first fail.
>>
>> Who says that invalid key is a permanent failure though?
>>
> See the response to the other patchset.
> 'Invalid key' in this context means that the _client_ evaluated the
> key as invalid, ie the key is unusable for the client.
> As the key is passed in via the commandline there is no way the client
> can ever change the value here, and no amount of retry will change
> things here. That's what we try to fix.
Where is this retried today, I don't see where connect failure is
retried, outside of a periodic reconnect.
Maybe I'm missing where what is the actual failure here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-07 11:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-05 8:00 [PATCH v3 0/2] nvme-fabrics: short-circuit connect retries Daniel Wagner
2024-03-05 8:00 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] nvme-tcp: short-circuit reconnect retries Daniel Wagner
2024-03-06 8:10 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2024-03-05 8:00 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] nvme-rdma: " Daniel Wagner
2024-03-06 8:11 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2024-03-06 8:17 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2024-03-07 8:00 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] nvme-fabrics: short-circuit connect retries Sagi Grimberg
2024-03-07 10:37 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-03-07 11:30 ` Sagi Grimberg [this message]
2024-03-07 11:45 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-03-07 12:14 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-03-07 12:52 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-03-08 10:21 ` Sagi Grimberg
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=432a39d5-6d08-4d38-a357-7c8d9123189a@grimberg.me \
--to=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=dwagner@suse.de \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=james.smart@broadcom.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.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).