On 12/12/2017 07:25 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 08:01 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 01:00 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>> @@ -541,6 +544,20 @@ static int alua_rtpg(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct alua_port_group *pg)
>>>> retval = submit_rtpg(sdev, buff, bufflen, &sense_hdr, pg->flags);
>>>>
>>>> if (retval) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If the target only supports active/optimized there's
>>>> + * not much we can do; it's not that we can switch paths
>>>> + * or somesuch.
>>>> + * So ignore any errors to avoid spurious failures during
>>>> + * path failover.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if ((pg->valid_states & ~TPGS_SUPPORT_OPTIMIZED) == 0) {
>>>> + sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev,
>>>> + "%s: ignoring rtpg result %d\n",
>>>> + ALUA_DH_NAME, retval);
>>>> + kfree(buff);
>>>> + return SCSI_DH_OK;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Hello Hannes,
>>>
>>> Sorry but this change looks weird to me. If an RTPG fails, shouldn't
>>> alua_rtpg() return SCSI_DH_IO independent of what ALUA states the target
>>> supports? Are you perhaps trying to implement a work-around for an array
>>> that does not respond to RTPG during path transitions?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, precisely.
>>
>> Thing is: if an array is only supporting active/optimized the entire
>> device-handler stuff is basically a no-op as we can't switch paths anyway.
>> So it doesn't really matter if the RTPG fails; in fact, we could just
>> short-circuit the entire logic. I did not do that to allow for a state
>> modification (ie arrays _might_ decide to announce additional states
>> eventually, and only starting off with active/optimized as an initial
>> state set).
>>
>> But if we return SCSI_DH_IO here the multipath logic will not attempt to
>> switch paths, and failover will not work.
>
> Hello Hannes,
>
> I would appreciate it if it would be mentioned more clearly in the comment
> above pg->valid_states & ~TPGS_SUPPORT_OPTIMIZED that the newly added code
> is a workaround for non-standard array behavior. I'm afraid that otherwise
> people who will read that code will be puzzled about why that code has been
> added.
>
Okay, not a problem.
Will be sending out a v2.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
