Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: cang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date:   Sun, 13 Jun 2021 21:30:27 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
        hongwus@codeaurora.org, ziqichen@codeaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] scsi: ufs: Complete the cmd before returning in
 queuecommand
In-Reply-To: <5df201d5-ab7f-a9fc-36aa-6dd174e9cee2@acm.org>
References: <1623300218-9454-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <1623300218-9454-5-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <d017548a-16fb-8ad0-2363-09dad00c9642@acm.org>
 <80926df7e3e41088e59ce5e0dbdec28a@codeaurora.org>
 <5df201d5-ab7f-a9fc-36aa-6dd174e9cee2@acm.org>
Message-ID: <3f39da79b40b53240636e848cd65feac@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-06-12 23:50, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 6/12/21 12:38 AM, Can Guo wrote:
>> On 2021-06-12 04:52, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 6/9/21 9:43 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>>>> @@ -2768,15 +2778,6 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct
>>>> Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>>>      WARN_ON(ufshcd_is_clkgating_allowed(hba) &&
>>>>          (hba->clk_gating.state != CLKS_ON));
>>>> 
>>>> -    if (unlikely(test_bit(tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs))) {
>>>> -        if (hba->wl_pm_op_in_progress)
>>>> -            set_host_byte(cmd, DID_BAD_TARGET);
>>>> -        else
>>>> -            err = SCSI_MLQUEUE_HOST_BUSY;
>>>> -        ufshcd_release(hba);
>>>> -        goto out;
>>>> -    }
>>>> -
>>>>      lrbp = &hba->lrb[tag];
>>>>      WARN_ON(lrbp->cmd);
>>>>      lrbp->cmd = cmd;
>>> 
>>> Can the code under "if (unlikely(test_bit(tag,
>>> &hba->outstanding_reqs)))" be deleted instead of moving it? I don't
>>> think that it is useful to verify whether the block layer tag 
>>> allocator
>>> works correctly. Additionally, I'm not aware of any similar code in 
>>> any
>>> other SCSI LLD.
>> 
>> ufshcd_abort() aborts PM requests differently from other requests -
>> it simply evicts the cmd from lrbp [1], schedules error handler and
>> returns SUCCESS (the reason why I am doing it this way is in patch 
>> #8).
>> 
>> After ufshcd_abort() returns, the tag shall be released, the logic
>> here is to prevent subsequent cmds re-use the lrbp [1] before error
>> handler recovers the device and host.
> 
> Thanks for the background information. However, this approach sounds
> cumbersome to me. For PM requests, please change the UFS driver such
> that calling scsi_done() for aborted requests is postponed until error
> handling has finished and delete the code shown above from
> ufshcd_queuecommand().

I will delete the code in next version, since I believe the hba_state
checks before the code is enough to achieve the same purpose, so this
code becomes redundant.

Thanks,

Can Guo.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.