Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752037AbXAaEVe (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:21:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752002AbXAaEVe (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:21:34 -0500 Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([64.109.89.108]:47342 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751987AbXAaEVd (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:21:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR From: James Bottomley To: Ric Wheeler Cc: Mark Lord , "Eric D. Mudama" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, IDE/ATA development list , linux-scsi In-Reply-To: <45C00AEE.1090708@emc.com> References: <200701301947.08478.liml@rtr.ca> <1170206199.10890.13.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <311601c90701301725n53d25a74g652b7ca3bfc64c56@mail.gmail.com> <45BFF3D6.9050605@rtr.ca> <45C00AEE.1090708@emc.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:21:28 -0600 Message-Id: <1170217288.10890.37.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2.1 (2.8.2.1-3.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1644 Lines: 37 On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 22:20 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > Mark Lord wrote: > > The number of retries is an entirely separate issue. > > If we really care about it, then we should fix SD_MAX_RETRIES. > > > > The current value of 5 is *way* too high. It should be zero or one. > > > > Cheers > > > I think that drives retry enough, we should leave retry at zero for > normal (non-removable) drives. Should this be a policy we can set like > we do with NCQ queue depth via /sys ? I don't disagree that it should be settable. However, retries occur for other reasons than failures inside the device. The most standard ones are unit attentions generated because of other activity (target reset etc). The key to the problem is retrying only operations that are genuinely retryable, which the mid-layer doesn't do such a good job on. > We need to be able to layer things like MD on top of normal drive errors > in a way that will produce a system that provides reasonable response > time despite any possible IO error on a single component. Another case > that we end up doing on a regular basis is drive recovery. Errors need > to be limited in scope to just the impacted area and dispatched up to > the application layer as quickly as we can so that you don't spend days > watching a copy of huge drive (think 750GB or more) ;-) For the MD case, this is what REQ_FAILFAST is for. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/