On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.de> wrote: > On 11/04/2016 01:45 PM, Sreekanth Reddy wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> From last two days, I was working with my firmware team to get the >> required info over this issue. Here is my firmware team response >> >> "For ATA PASSTHROUGH commands, the IOC SATL will not check for the >> opcode and will direct it to the drive. So even though ATA PASSTHOUGH >> has ATA erase to the drive, IOC SATL FW will not know that and as a >> general logic for all ATA PASSTHOGH commands, IOC FW will pend the >> upcoming IOs untill the previous ATA PASSTHORUGH completes. This is as >> per the SAT specification for SAS controllers and we can't compare it >> with the SATA controllers in the on board that have full fledge SATA >> implementation". >> >> So this is an expected behavior from our HBA firmware. i.e. it will >> pend the subsequent commands if any ATA PASSTHROUGH command is going >> on. So their is no issue with the FW. >> > But is there a way to figure out if the firmware / SATL layer is busy > processing requests? > > With 'real' ATA HBAs these issue doesn't occur, as the ATA erase command is > a non-queued command, and hence the next command automatically has to wait > for the erase command to complete. > But this wait happens as the ATA HBA returns 'BUSY', and the linux I/O stack > will then reset the timeout for all consecutive commands. > > With mpt3sas _all_ commands are queued, so if there is a long-running I/O > command all other commands already in the queue will time out. > > Which is at least a very awkward behaviour. > > Checking with SAT-3 (section 6.2.4: Commands the SATL queues internally) the > implemented behaviour is standards conformant, although the standard also > allows for returning 'TASK SET FULL' or 'BUSY' in these cases. > Doing so would nicely solve this issue. > >> Today I have tried the same test case on my local setup. i.e. I have >> issued a secure erase command using hdparm utility and observed the >> same issue on 4.2.3-300.fc23.x86_64 kernel. >> >> Then after browsing over this issue, I found that some people are >> recommending to enable 'CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL' Kconfig flag. I had a >> compiled 4.4.0 kernel, so I have enabled this CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL >> and recompiled this 4.4.0 kernel and booted in to this kernel. Then I >> tried same test case and I haven't observed this issue and secure >> erase operation was completed successfully. >> >> So, can you please try once with CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL enabled. >> > Errm. > CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL is for the old IDE subsystem, which isn't in use here. > So this option does not make a difference when using mpt3sas, as this is a > 'real' SCSI driver which never calls out into any of these subsystems. > > I would be _VERY_ much surprised if that would make a difference. > > The reason why this behaviour did go unnoticed with older kernels was that a > command timeout would trigger SCSI EH to engage, and that in turn required > all outstanding commands to complete. > So by the time SCSI EH started the ERASE command was complete, and a retry > of the timed-out commands would work.
Indeed, when retesting with CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL=y and. reverting the fix the bug is back. Thanks, Andrey > > > Cheers, > > Hannes > -- > Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage > h...@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg > GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- 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
