On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:37:14PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 09:15 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 07:07:53PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 01:48 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > No, that patch only changes blk_insert_cloned_request() which is used > > > > by dm-rq(mpath) only, nothing to do with the reported issue during > > > > suspend and sending SCSI Domain validation. > > > > > > There may be other ways to fix the SCSI domain validation code. > > > > Again the issue isn't in domain validation, it is in quiesce, > > so we need to fix quiesce, instead of working around transport_spi. > > > > Also What is the other way? Why not this patchset? > > Sorry if I had not made this clear enough but I don't like the approach of > this patch series so please do not expect any "Reviewed-by" tags from me. > As the discussion about v4 of this patch series made clear the interaction > between blk_cleanup_queue() and the changes introduced by this patch series > in blk_get_request() is subtle and hard to analyze. The blk-mq core is
No, it isn't subtle at all, as I explained, queue dying can be set during allocating request in both legacy and blk-mq, and driver is required to handle requests after queue becomes dying, this way has been there for long time. Is that really hard to analyze? > already complicated. In my view patches that make the blk-mq core simpler > are much more welcome than patches that make the blk-mq core more > complicated. Sorry, I can't agree this patchset is too complicated, this patchset just touches quiesce interface. For other change such as holding queue usage counter, it follows blk-mq's way, and we can reuse this way for legacy too. > > Since I expect that any fix for the interaction between blk-mq and power > management will be integrated in kernel v4.15 at earliest there is no reason Again, it isn't not related PM only, it is actually related with SCSI quiesce. > to rush. My proposal is to wait a few weeks and to see whether anyone comes > up with a better solution. I am open for any solution and happy to review them if someone posts them out, but it should cover at least the two kind of reported issues. However I won't wait for that, since people have been troubled with this stuff much, like Oleksandr's case, the system is simple dead after one susend. And the I/O hang in sending SCSI domain validation was actually reported from a production system too. -- Ming
