Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <64d5a997-a1bf-7747-072d-711a8248874d@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:56:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [REQUEST DISCUSS]: speed up SCSI error handle for host with
 massive devices
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Wenchao Hao <haowenchao@huawei.com>,
        Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>,
        Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com>
Cc:     Wu Bo <wubo40@huawei.com>, Feilong Lin <linfeilong@huawei.com>,
        zhangjian013@huawei.com
References: <71e09bb4-ff0a-23fe-38b4-fe6425670efa@huawei.com>
 <cd7bda98-2160-9271-9520-e98d1fe00ea5@linux.ibm.com>
 <331aafe1-df9b-cae4-c958-9cf1800e389a@huawei.com>
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <331aafe1-df9b-cae4-c958-9cf1800e389a@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/29/22 14:40, Wenchao Hao wrote:
> On 2022/3/29 18:56, Steffen Maier wrote:
>> On 3/29/22 11:06, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>> SCSI timeout would call scsi_eh_scmd_add() on some conditions, host 
>>> would be set
>>> to SHOST_RECOVERY state. Once host enter SHOST_RECOVERY, IOs 
>>> submitted to all
>>> devices in this host would not succeed until the scsi_error_handler() 
>>> finished.
>>> The scsi_error_handler() might takes long time to be done, it's 
>>> unbearable when
>>> host has massive devices.
>>>
>>> I want to ask is anyone applying another error handler flow to 
>>> address this
>>> phenomenon?
>>>
>>> I think we can move some operations(like scsi get sense, scsi send 
>>> startunit
>>> and scsi device reset) out of scsi_unjam_host(), to perform these 
>>> operations
>>> without setting host to SHOST_RECOVERY? It would reduce the time of 
>>> block the
>>> whole host.
>>>
>>> Waiting for your discussion.
>>
>> We already have "async" aborts before even entering scsi_eh. So your 
>> use case seems to imply that those aborts fail and we enter scsi_eh?
>>
> 
> Yes, I mean when scsi_abort_command() failed and scsi_eh_scmd_add() is 
> called.
> 
>> There's eh_deadline for limiting the time spent in escalation of 
>> scsi_eh, and instead directly go to host reset. Would this help?
>>
>>
> 
> The deadline seems not helpful. What we want to see is a single LUN's 
> command error
> would not stop other LUNs which share the same host. So my plan is to 
> move reset LUN out
> from scsi_unjam_host() which run with host set to SHOST_RECOVERY.

Nope. One of the key points of scsi_unjam_host() is that is has to stop 
all I/O before proceeding. Without doing so basically all SCSI parallel 
HBAs will fail EH as they _require_ I/O to be stopped.

And even on modern HBAs we have the challenge that 99% of every EH 
invocation is triggered by command timeouts, where 'LUN reset' is only 
of limited usability.

Cheers,

Hannes