Hi,
On 08/25/2014 05:41 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 13:39 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 25/08/2014 13:26, Hans de Goede ha scritto:
>>> Thanks Bart and Paolo, your insights into this are greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> So with uas there are separate usb transaction for cmd, data in, data out
>>> and sense for each tag. At the time of abort, usually one of data in / data
>>> out and a sense usb transaction will be outstanding.
>>>
>>> There already is logic in the driver to kill the data in / out transactions
>>> if a sense gets returned (usually with an error) before they are done.
>>>
>>> So if I'm reading this correctly, then on a successful abort, the sense
>>> transaction (if not already completed by the target) should be cancelled as
>>> it will never complete, correct ?
>>
>> Yes. More precisely, once the response IU comes back for the abort,
>> there should be no more IUs for that task. Figure 13 ("Multiple Command
>> Example") in the UAS spec actually shows that.
>>
>> At least, that's what it should be like in theory. I suspect firmware
>> bugs will abound in this area, but at least you shouldn't be actively
>> expecting an IU for an aborted task.
>
> Just a note on this. The abort area in all devices is where we have
> scope for spec compliance issues. Also in the old days abort itself
> could trigger a firmware crash on some devices (including arrays). The
> problem is actually that the system is usually groaning because it's out
> of memory within the controller. That actually means that sending in
> another task (the abort) causes greater pressure. For this reason, some
> device drivers choose to skip the abort step and head straight to reset.
> For reset, you guarantee that all outstanding tasks for the unit are
> killed.
Hmm, I like this idea, given the finickiness of the abort path in the uas
driver, and that:
1) We really have no proper way to test this
2) We already have some known issues there (we don't kill sense urbs atm,
and I've a note somewhere about a double free on some corner case
where an urb submit fails)
3)
3) In all the cases where I've managed to trip op an uas device the only
thing which actually worked to recover things was doing a usb reset
4) Aborts should not happen in the first place, so using a big hammer
when they do is not really a big problem, instead we should focus
on figuring out why they happen and fix the cause
I think that just dropping abort handling altogether is a good idea actually,
so if there are no objections I'm just going to do that.
I can simply not set eh_abort_handler (aka set it to NULL), right ?
###
What about a logical unit reset ? Is that worth trying first? Or is that
likely to just trip up more firmware bugs (uas == usb == cheap == lots of
those) ?
Going straight to an usb device reset would significantly simplify the code,
but is not really friendly toward other usb drivers for a multi-function
uas device (of which I've seen no so far, but they are bound to happen).
So I guess that trying a logical unit reset first would probably be a good
idea.
I know that it works in non error conditions as I've inserted one (in my
local tree only) in the probe path to test task management functions in
general. It has never really been tested under error conditions since the
uas code can only run one task management function at a time (there is 1
tag reserved for task management functions) and in all error scenarios
I've been able to test so far, the abort timed out, so the
eh_device_reset_handler would always return FAILED (-EBUSY).
So showing my greeness wrt scsi again, what should I do with outstanding
scsi commands at this time. Can I simply cancel all outstanding usb transactions
(ie data in/out, sense) for all outstanding commands on the lun in question,
wait for the cancellations to complete, and then issue the logical unit reset ?
IOW will the lun have forgotten about any outstanding scsi commands after
a successful logical unit reset ?
And what should I do with regards to calling the scsi_done function for the
outstanding commands. I assume that when eh_device_reset_handler gets called,
the scsi_done function for any outstanding commands should not be called,
correct ?
And what about a race when a command completes after all just before
eh_device_reset_handler gets called, I assume that that is handled properly
by the scsi core ?
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
