On 04/15/2019 10:18 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:38:37 -0400
Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/15/2019 04:13 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:38:50 -0400
Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/12/2019 04:10 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:30:44 -0400
Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/11/2019 12:24 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:05:32 -0400
Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Looking at the possible return codes:
* -ENODEV -> device is not operational anyway, in theory you should even
not need to bother with disabling the subchannel
* -EIO -> we've run out of retries, and the subchannel still is not
idle; I'm not sure if we could do anything here, as disable is
unlikely to work, either
(...)
Thinking a little bit more about EIO, if the return code is EIO then it
means we have exhausted all our options with cancel_halt_clear and the
subchannel/device is still status pending, right?
Yes.
I think we should still continue to try and disable the subchannel,
because if not then the subchannel/device could in some point of time
come back and bite us. So we really should protect the system from this
behavior.
I think trying to disable the subchannel does not really hurt, but I
fear it won't succeed in that case...
I think for EIO we should log an error message, but still try to
continue with disabling the subchannel. What do you or others think?
Logging an error may be useful (it's really fouled up at that time), but...
+ flush_workqueue(vfio_ccw_work_q);
+ spin_lock_irq(sch->lock);
ret = cio_disable_subchannel(sch);
...there's a good chance that we'd get -EBUSY here, which would keep us
in the loop. We probably need to break out after we got -EIO from
cancel_halt_clear, regardless of which return code we get from the
disable.
Okay, for EIO we can log an error message and break out of the loop.
I will send a v3. Are you going to queue patch 1 or patch 3 soon? If you
are then I will just send this patch separately.
Yes, please do send it separately. I'm currently testing patch 1 and 3
on top of my patchset, will queue either with or without the halt/clear
patches proper, depending on how soon I get acks/r-bs (hint, hint :)
I am going through your patches 4 and 6 and hopefully will get back to
you by the end of the day :).
Thanks
Farhan
(It will be "interesting" to see what happens with such a stuck
subchannel in the calling code; but I don't really see many options.
Panic seems way too strong; maybe mark the subchannel as "broken; no
idea how to fix"? But that would be a follow-on patch; I think if we
avoid the endless loop here, this patch is a real improvement and
should just go in.)
} while (ret == -EBUSY);
out_unlock:
