On 7/13/22 14:43, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 7/13/22 14:49, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 7/13/22 13:00, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Maybe the solution is to just not expose a /dev/ng for the mpath
device
node, but only for bottom namespaces. Then it would be completely
equivalent to scsi-generic devices.
It just creates an unexpected mix of semantics of best-effort
multipathing with just path selection, but no requeue/failover...
Which is exactly the same semanics as SG_IO on the dm-mpath nodes.
I view uring passthru somewhat as a different thing than sending SG_IO
ioctls to dm-mpath. But it can be argued otherwise.
BTW, the only consumer of it that I'm aware of commented that he
expects dm-mpath to retry SG_IO when dm-mpath retry for SG_IO submission
was attempted (https://www.spinics.net/lists/dm-devel/msg46924.html).
From Paolo:
"The problem is that userspace does not have a way to direct the
command to a different path in the resubmission. It may not even have
permission to issue DM_TABLE_STATUS, or to access the /dev nodes for
the underlying paths, so without Martin's patches SG_IO on dm-mpath
is basically unreliable by design."
I didn't manage to track down any followup after that email though...
I did; 'twas me who was involved in the initial customer issue leading
up to that.
Amongst all the other issue we've found the prime problem with SG_IO
is that it needs to be directed to the 'active' path.
For the device-mapper has a distinct callout (dm_prepare_ioctl), which
essentially returns the current active path device. And then the
device-mapper core issues the command on that active path.
All nice and good, _unless_ that command triggers an error.
Normally it'd be intercepted by the dm-multipath end_io handler, and
would set the path to offline.
But as ioctls do not use the normal I/O path the end_io handler is
never called, and further SG_IO calls are happily routed down the
failed path.
And the customer had to use SG_IO (or, in qemu-speak, LUN passthrough)
as his application/filesystem makes heavy use of persistent reservations.
How did this conclude Hannes?
It didn't. The proposed interface got rejected, and now we need to come
up with an alternative solution.
Which we haven't found yet.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer
