On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:30:03PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:49:25PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:05:48AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:33:52PM +0000, Agarwal, Anchal wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:27:50PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > > > > From: Munehisa Kamata <kamatam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > + xenbus_dev_error(dev, err, "Freezing timed out;"
> > > > > + "the device may become inconsistent state");
> > > >
> > > > Leaving the device in this state is quite bad, as it's in a closed
> > > > state and with the queues frozen. You should make an attempt to
> > > > restore things to a working state.
> > > >
> > > > You mean if backend closed after timeout? Is there a way to know that? I understand it's not good to
> > > > leave it in this state however, I am still trying to find if there is a good way to know if backend is still connected after timeout.
> > > > Hence the message " the device may become inconsistent state". I didn't see a timeout not even once on my end so that's why
> > > > I may be looking for an alternate perspective here. may be need to thaw everything back intentionally is one thing I could think of.
> > >
> > > You can manually force this state, and then check that it will behave
> > > correctly. I would expect that on a failure to disconnect from the
> > > backend you should switch the frontend to the 'Init' state in order to
> > > try to reconnect to the backend when possible.
> > >
> > From what I understand forcing manually is, failing the freeze without
> > disconnect and try to revive the connection by unfreezing the
> > queues->reconnecting to backend [which never got diconnected]. May be even
> > tearing down things manually because I am not sure what state will frontend
> > see if backend fails to to disconnect at any point in time. I assumed connected.
> > Then again if its "CONNECTED" I may not need to tear down everything and start
> > from Initialising state because that may not work.
> >
> > So I am not so sure about backend's state so much, lets say if xen_blkif_disconnect fail,
> > I don't see it getting handled in the backend then what will be backend's state?
> > Will it still switch xenbus state to 'Closed'? If not what will frontend see,
> > if it tries to read backend's state through xenbus_read_driver_state ?
> >
> > So the flow be like:
> > Front end marks XenbusStateClosing
> > Backend marks its state as XenbusStateClosing
> > Frontend marks XenbusStateClosed
> > Backend disconnects calls xen_blkif_disconnect
> > Backend fails to disconnect, the above function returns EBUSY
> > What will be state of backend here?
> > Frontend did not tear down the rings if backend does not switches the
> > state to 'Closed' in case of failure.
> >
> > If backend stays in CONNECTED state, then even if we mark it Initialised in frontend, backend
> > won't be calling connect(). {From reading code in frontend_changed}
> > IMU, Initialising will fail since backend dev->state != XenbusStateClosed plus
> > we did not tear down anything so calling talk_to_blkback may not be needed
> >
> > Does that sound correct?
> Send that too quickly, I also meant to add XenBusIntialised state should be ok
> only if we expect backend will stay in "Connected" state. Also, I experimented
> with that notion. I am little worried about the correctness here.
> Can the backend come to an Unknown state somehow?
Not really, there's no such thing as an Unknown state.
There are no guarantees about what a backend can do really, so it
could indeed switch to a not recognized state, but that would be a
bug in the backend.
Roger.
