On 7/13/22 15:41, 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.
Lets assume for the sake of discussion, had dm-mpath set a path to be
offline on ioctl errors, what would qemu do upon this error? blindly
retry? Until When? Or would qemu need to learn about the path tables in
order to know when there is at least one online path in order to retry?
IIRC that was one of the points why it got rejected.
Ideally we would return an errno indicating that the path had failed,
but further paths are available, so a retry is in order.
Once no paths are available qemu would be getting a different error
indicating that all paths are failed.
But we would be overloading a new meaning to existing error numbers, or
even inventing our own error numbers. Which makes it rather awkward to use.
Ideally we would be able to return this as the SG_IO status, as that is
well capable of expressing these situations. But then we would need to
parse and/or return the error ourselves, essentially moving sg_io
funtionality into dm-mpath. Also not what one wants.
What is the model that a passthru consumer needs to follow when
operating against a mpath device?
The model really is that passthru consumer needs to deal with these errors:
- No error (obviously)
- I/O error (error status will not change with a retry)
- Temporary/path related error (error status might change with a retry)
Then the consumer can decide whether to invoke a retry (for the last
class), or whether it should pass up that error, as maybe there are
applications with need a quick response time and can handle temporary
failures (or, in fact, want to be informed about temporary failures).
IE the 'DNR' bit should serve nicely here, keeping in mind that we might
need to 'fake' an NVMe error status if the connection is severed.
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
