[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc33dcfe-244c-412a-ab06-a554a66ada1b@grimberg.me>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 11:52:31 +0200
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@...estorage.com>
Cc: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Aaron Dailey <adailey@...estorage.com>,
Randy Jennings <randyj@...estorage.com>, John Meneghini
<jmeneghi@...hat.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/14] nvme: Add RECOVERING nvme controller state
On 25/12/2025 19:17, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> On Thu 2025-12-25 15:29:52 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>
>> On 26/11/2025 4:11, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
>>> Add NVME_CTRL_RECOVERING as a new controller state to be used when
>>> impacted controller is being recovered. A LIVE controller enters
>>> RECOVERING state when an IO error is encountered. While recovering
>>> inflight IOs will not be canceled if they timeout. These IOs will be
>>> canceled after recovery finishes. Also, while recovering a controller
>>> can not be reset or deleted. This is intentional because reset or delete
>>> will result in canceling inflight IOs. When recovery finishes, the
>>> impacted controller transitions from RECOVERING state to RESETTING state.
>>> Reset codepath takes care of queues teardown and inflight requests
>>> cancellation.
>> Is RECOVERING really capturing the nature of this state? Maybe RESETTLING?
>> or QUIESCING?
> Naming is hard. QUIESCING sounds better, I will renaming it to
> QUIESCING.
>
>>> Note, there is no transition from RECOVERING to RESETTING added to
>>> nvme_change_ctrl_state(). The reason is that user should not be allowed
>>> to reset or delete a controller that is being recovered.
>>>
>>> Add NVME_CTRL_RECOVERED controller flag. This flag is set on a controller
>>> about to schedule delayed work for time based recovery.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@...estorage.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>> drivers/nvme/host/nvme.h | 2 ++
>>> drivers/nvme/host/sysfs.c | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>>> index aa007a7b9606..f5b84bc327d3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>>> @@ -574,6 +574,15 @@ bool nvme_change_ctrl_state(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl,
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> break;
>>> + case NVME_CTRL_RECOVERING:
>>> + switch (old_state) {
>>> + case NVME_CTRL_LIVE:
>>> + changed = true;
>>> + fallthrough;
>>> + default:
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + break;
>> That is a strange transition...
> Why is it strange?
>
> We transition to RECOVERING state only if controller is LIVE. This is
> when we expect to have inflight user IOs to be quiesced by CCR. We do
> not care about inflight requests in other states.
Sorry, got confused myself - I read it as the other way around...
I am missing RECOVERING -> RESETTING transition in this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists