On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:42:16PM +0800, peng.liang5@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello, Ben
>
> Sorry for late to reply.
>
> Such is the case as you said below. If fast_io_fail_tmo is off we have to
> cap
>
> dev_loss_tmo at 600. So, this patch is a wrong guide and will be cause a
>
> kernel error.
>
> And one more question. Should the system limit dev_loss_tmo to 600 if
>
> fast_io_fail_tmo set to 0?
No. The kernel doesn't limit dev_loss_tmo in this case. From a quick
test, it looks like setting fast_io_fail_tmo to 0 means that the scsi
layer fails the IO back immediately, without any waiting for the path to
return. This means that any value for dev_loss_tmo should be fine.
Thanks.
-Ben
> Hope for your reply. Thanks.
>
> 原始邮件
> 发件人：BenjaminMarzinski
> 收件人：彭亮10137102;
> 抄送人：张凯10072500;＜dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx＞
> 日 期 ：2016年12月02日 00:51
> 主 题 ：Re: [PATCH] libmultipath: ensure dev_loss_tmo will be
> update to MAX_DEV_LOSS_TMO if no_path_retry set to queue
>
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:06:14AM +0800, peng.liang5@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ＞ If fast_io_fail_tmo isn't set, it will be use the DEFAULT_FAST_IO_FAIL
> ＞ in select_fast_io_fail.
> ＞
> ＞ So, multipath will not run the limited of dev_loss_tmo to 600.
>
> Yes, but the kernel will. With your patch installed, if I disable
> fast_io_fail_tmo and set no_path_retry to queue, I get these messages
>
> Dec 01 04:19:02 | rport-11:0-0: failed to set dev_loss_tmo to
> 2147483647, error 22
>
> Because if fast_io_fail_tmo is not set, the kernel itself will bar
> dev_loss_tmo from being above 600 seconds. Also, even if you could set
> dev_loss_tmo to it's maximum without fast_io_fail_tmo set, you would
> never want to, because you would break multipath.
>
> With fast_io_fail_tmo disabled, the scsi device will never pass the
> failed IO back up until dev_loss_tmo triggers. This means that if you
> lose a path on your multipath device while doing IO, you won't be able
> to resend that IO down another path for 68 years (2147483647 seconds).
> Also, all the synchronous checker functions will not return for 648
> years. And during all this time these processes will be uninterruptable
> sleep. At that point, there would be no point to even having multiple
> paths, because you couldn't ever actually use them if one went down.
>
> ＞
> ＞ And I think using MP_FAST_IO_FAIL_UNSET as the condition is meaningless
> ＞ after multipath
> ＞
> ＞ run select_fast_io_fail even if it's not set.
>
> This is true in the default case, but we can't rely on the default case.
> Since we allow users to turn it off, we need to correctly configure
> multipath when it is off.
>
> -Ben
>
> ＞ 原始邮件
> ＞ 发件人：BenjaminMarzinski
> ＞ 收件人：彭亮10137102;
> ＞ 抄送人：＜dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx＞张凯10072500;
> ＞ 日 期 ：2016年11月29日 08:30
> ＞ 主 题
> ：Re: [PATCH] libmultipath: ensure dev_loss_tmo will be
> ＞ update to MAX_DEV_LOSS_TMO if no_path_retry set to queue
> ＞
> ＞ On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:36:04PM +0800, peng.liang5@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ＞ ＞ From: PengLiang ＜peng.liang5@xxxxxxxxxx＞
> ＞ ＞
> ＞
> ＞ If no_path_retry set to queue, we should make sure dev_loss_tmo update to MAX_DEV_LOSS_TMO.
> ＞
> ＞ But, it will be limit to 600 if fast_io_fail_tmo set to off or 0 meanwhile.
> ＞
> ＞ Doesn't the system still limit dev_loss_tmo to 600 if fast_io_fail_tmo isn't set. Multipath
> ＞ was using this limit, since the underlying system uses it.
> ＞
> ＞ -Ben
> ＞
> ＞ ＞
> ＞ ＞ Signed-off-by: PengLiang ＜peng.liang5@xxxxxxxxxx＞
> ＞ ＞ ---
> ＞ ＞ libmultipath/discovery.c | 3 ++-
> ＞ ＞ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> ＞ ＞
> ＞ ＞ diff --git a/libmultipath/discovery.c b/libmultipath/discovery.c
> ＞ ＞ index aaa915c..05b0842 100644
> ＞ ＞ --- a/libmultipath/discovery.c
> ＞ ＞ +++ b/libmultipath/discovery.c
> ＞
> ＞ @@ -608,7 +608,8 @@ sysfs_set_rport_tmo(struct multipath *mpp, struct path *pp)
> ＞ ＞ goto out;
> ＞ ＞ }
> ＞ ＞ }
> ＞ ＞ - } else if (mpp-＞dev_loss ＞ DEFAULT_DEV_LOSS_TMO) {
> ＞ ＞ + } else if (mpp-＞dev_loss ＞ DEFAULT_DEV_LOSS_TMO &&
> ＞ ＞ + mpp-＞no_path_retry != NO_PATH_RETRY_QUEUE) {
> ＞ ＞ condlog(3, "%s: limiting dev_loss_tmo to %d, since "
> ＞ ＞ "fast_io_fail is not set",
> ＞ ＞ rport_id, DEFAULT_DEV_LOSS_TMO);
> ＞ ＞ --
> ＞ ＞ 2.8.1.windows.1
> ＞
> ＞ --
> ＞ dm-devel mailing list
> ＞ dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
> ＞ https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
>
> --
> dm-devel mailing list
> dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
