On 2016/2/4 14:48, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> When a storage device rejects a WRITE SAME command we will disable write
> same functionality for the device and return -EREMOTEIO to the block
> layer. -EREMOTEIO will in turn prevent DM from retrying the I/O and/or
> failing the path.
>
> Yiwen Jiang discovered a small race where WRITE SAME requests issued
> simultaneously would cause -EIO to be returned. This happened because
> any requests being prepared after WRITE SAME had been disabled for the
> device caused us to return BLKPREP_KILL. The latter caused the block
> layer to return -EIO upon completion.
>
> To overcome this we introduce BLKPREP_INVALID which indicates that this
> is an invalid request for the device. blk_peek_request() is modified to
> return -EREMOTEIO in that case.
>
> Reported-by: Yiwen Jiang <jiangyiwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> I contemplated making blk_peek_request() use rq->errors to decide what
> to return up the stack. However, I cringed at mixing errnos and SCSI
> midlayer status information in the same location.
> ---
> block/blk-core.c | 6 ++++--
> drivers/scsi/sd.c | 4 ++--
> include/linux/blkdev.h | 9 ++++++---
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 33e2f62d5062..ee833af2f892 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -2446,14 +2446,16 @@ struct request *blk_peek_request(struct request_queue *q)
>
> rq = NULL;
> break;
> - } else if (ret == BLKPREP_KILL) {
> + } else if (ret == BLKPREP_KILL || ret == BLKPREP_INVALID) {
> + int err = ret == BLKPREP_INVALID ? -EREMOTEIO : -EIO;
> +
> rq->cmd_flags |= REQ_QUIET;
> /*
> * Mark this request as started so we don't trigger
> * any debug logic in the end I/O path.
> */
> blk_start_request(rq);
> - __blk_end_request_all(rq, -EIO);
> + __blk_end_request_all(rq, err);
> } else {
> printk(KERN_ERR "%s: bad return=%d\n", __func__, ret);
> break;
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> index ec163d08f6c3..6e841c6da632 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> @@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static int sd_setup_discard_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> break;
>
> default:
> - ret = BLKPREP_KILL;
> + ret = BLKPREP_INVALID;
> goto out;
> }
>
> @@ -839,7 +839,7 @@ static int sd_setup_write_same_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> int ret;
>
> if (sdkp->device->no_write_same)
> - return BLKPREP_KILL;
> + return BLKPREP_INVALID;
>
> BUG_ON(bio_offset(bio) || bio_iovec(bio).bv_len != sdp->sector_size);
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> index c70e3588a48c..e990d181625a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> @@ -680,9 +680,12 @@ static inline bool blk_write_same_mergeable(struct bio *a, struct bio *b)
> /*
> * q->prep_rq_fn return values
> */
> -#define BLKPREP_OK 0 /* serve it */
> -#define BLKPREP_KILL 1 /* fatal error, kill */
> -#define BLKPREP_DEFER 2 /* leave on queue */
> +enum {
> + BLKPREP_OK, /* serve it */
> + BLKPREP_KILL, /* fatal error, kill, return -EIO */
> + BLKPREP_INVALID, /* invalid command, kill, return -EREMOTEIO */
> + BLKPREP_DEFER, /* leave on queue */
> +};
>
> extern unsigned long blk_max_low_pfn, blk_max_pfn;
>
>
Hi Martin,
It is very good, I totally agree with this patch. But I have
three questions:
First, I don't understand why blk_peek_request() return EREMOTEIO,
as I know, in this situation we only prepare scsi command
without sending to device, and I think EREMOTEIO should
be returned only when IO has already sent to device, maybe
I don't understand definition of EREMOTEIO.
So, Why don't return the errno with EOPNOTSUPP?
In addition, I still worried with whether there has other
situations which will return EIO or other error. In this
way, MD/DM still can happen this type of problem, so I think
may be in multipath we still needs a protection to avoid it.
At last, I have a additional problem, I remember that you
previously send a series of patches about XCOPY, why don't
have any news latter later? I very much expect that I can
see these patches which are merged into kernel.
Thanks,
Yiwen Jiang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
