Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Message-ID: <98ea6e9b-cbfb-0485-6452-e3d979aaed54@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:41:44 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/18] scsi: scsi_error: Introduce new error handle
 mechanism
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
CC:     "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <louhongxiang@huawei.com>, <lixiaokeng@huawei.com>
References: <20230901094127.2010873-1-haowenchao2@huawei.com>
 <ZRGfc73BSW0yyUtI@infradead.org>
 <47bed3cb-f307-ec55-5c28-051687dab1ea@huawei.com>
 <a92f5e0c-1976-4fc6-ba48-7ff49546318a@oracle.com>
 <06268327-cfed-f266-34a7-fda69411ef2a@huawei.com>
 <c3763949-c810-4a1f-87cc-e2248bfdc40b@suse.de>
From:   Wenchao Hao <haowenchao2@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <c3763949-c810-4a1f-87cc-e2248bfdc40b@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/9/27 15:59, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 9/26/23 14:57, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>> On 2023/9/26 1:54, Mike Christie wrote:
>>> On 9/25/23 10:07 AM, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>>> On 2023/9/25 22:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>> Before we add another new error handling mechanism we need to fix the
>>>>> old one first.  Hannes' work on not passing the scsi_cmnd to the various
>>>>> reset handlers hasn't made a lot of progress in the last five years and
>>>>> we'll need to urgently fix that first before adding even more
>>>>> complexity.
>>>>>
>>>> I observed Hannes's patches posted about one year ago, it has not been
>>>> applied yet. I don't know if he is still working on it.
>>>>
>>>> My patches do not depend much on that work, I think the conflict can be
>>>> solved fast between two changes.
>>>
>>> I think we want to figure out Hannes's patches first.
>>>
>>> For a new EH design we will want to be able to do multiple TMFs in parallel
>>> on the same host/target right?
>>>
>>
>> It's not necessary to do multiple TMFs in parallel, it's ok to make sure
>> each TMFs do not affect each other.
>>
>> For example, we have two devices: 0:0:0:0 and 0:0:0:1
>>
>> Both of them request device reset, they do not happened in parallel, but
>> would in serial. If 0:0:0:0 is performing device reset in progress, 0:0:0:1
>> just wait 0:0:0:0 to finish.
>>
> Well, not quite. Any higher-order TMFs are serialized by virtue of SCSI-EH, but command aborts (which also devolve down to TMFs on certain drivers) do run in parallel, and there we will be requiring multiple TMFs.
> 

It's best that multiple  TMFs can run in parallel, again, looking forwarding
to your changes.

> Cheers,
> 
> Hannes