[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA93t1r0DstOijKWJgiL-8BB573fo_vVwxuB_S-_76hBdTT5Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:49:00 -0700
From: Rajat Jain <rajatxjain@...il.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Avoid potential infinite eh_timeout_handler() loop
Hello James,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:27 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 11:40 -0700, Rajat Jain wrote:
>> Each cmd timeout should result in scmd->retries++. Currently it happens
>> just only before a command is requeued back. However, if the LLD
>> eh_timed_out() handler asks to reset timer back again, then also it should
>> be incremented because effectively LLD will be given a full time period
>> (SD_TIMEOUT = 30 secs!) to attempt to complete the command.
>>
>> Why this is a problem:
>>
>> => Currently the SCSI low level transport drivers can provide
>> eh_timeout_handler() calls (for e.g. iscsi provides this) to deal
>> with command timeouts.
>>
>> => The eh_timeout_handler() can return BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER that causes the
>> SCSI / block layer to reset the timer, thus giving more time to the
>> LLD.
>>
>> => Currently a LLD can potentially loop infinitely on a command if it
>> always keeps on returning BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER.
>>
>> * => Other than choking its own devices, if the command that is stuck is a
>> command issued during sd_probe_async() (e.g. a partition table scan),
>> then it impacts all the disks because no other disks can be removed
>> from the system until sd_probe_async() returns. (sd_remove waits on
>> async_synchronize_full_domain(...))
>>
>> => This problem actually resulted in the situation mentioned above,
>> whereby no disks in the system (on other scsi hosts) could be removed,
>> because of a stuck scsi command to read the partition tables of an
>> unrelated problematic disk during probe. The threads were stuck at:
>>
>> schedule+0x312/0x7a0
>> async_synchronize_cookie_domain+0xb8/0x115
>> ? __wake_up_bit+0x40/0x40
>> async_synchronize_full_domain+0x15/0x17
>> sd_remove+0x5f/0x135
>> __device_release_driver+0x8a/0xe0
>> device_release_driver+0x23/0x30
>> bus_remove_device+0x10f/0x123
>> device_del+0x132/0x18e
>> __scsi_remove_device+0x56/0xb6
>> scsi_remove_device+0x26/0x33
>> scsi_remove_target+0x12d/0x1a0
>> ...
>>
>> What this patch does:
>> => Ensure that any quests to reset the timer are accounted for, so that
>> there is a finite upper bound on the time that a command is tried.
>> Once allowed number of retries is reached, we proceed to standard
>> error handling procedure (abort etc.) by scheduling the command
>> for EH.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
>
> This is actually wrong. Originally the code you're suggesting did exist
> and it used to cause us to time out far too early on some conditions.
> Now scmd->retries is for specific things that shouldn't be retried too
> often. Anything else appears to retry forever but in fact there's a
> specific check (in the softirq and io_completion) to check that a
> retryable failure hasn't taken longer than (cmd->allowed + 1) *
> req->timeout.
>
> This means effectively that nothing in SCSI is allowed to retry forever.
Thanks for the review. I'm not sure if I understood completely though.
I see the check you mention in softirq_done and in the
scsi_io_completion, however, I'm not sure if I see that in the
situation I mentioned above (eh_timed_out() always returning returning
BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER), how would the command ever end up in softirq_done
or io_completion (instead of going on infinitely)?
In my experiment, I actually instrumented the SCSI LLD to always ask
for more time (BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER) for 1 of the disks, and I actually
ended up with a system where I couldn't remove ANY of the disks in the
system (for the reasons mentioned in the commit log sd_remove()
waiting infinitely). I'm sure I'm missing something, but I'd
appreciate if you could please help me understand?
Thanks,
Rajat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists