On 9/26/19, 3:52 AM, "Martin Wilck" <mwilck@xxxxxxx> wrote:
External Email
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 11:09 -0700, Himanshu Madhani wrote:
> From: Quinn Tran <qutran@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In the case of NPIV port is being torn down, this patch will
> set a flag to indicate VPORT_DELETE. This would prevent relogin
> to be triggered.
>
> Signed-off-by: Quinn Tran <qutran@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Himanshu Madhani <hmadhani@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_attr.c | 2 ++
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_def.h | 1 +
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_gs.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_mid.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> ---
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_os.c | 7 ++++++-
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_target.c | 1 +
> 6 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_mid.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_mid.c
> @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ qla24xx_deallocate_vp_id(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
> uint16_t vp_id;
> struct qla_hw_data *ha = vha->hw;
> unsigned long flags = 0;
> + u8 i;
>
> mutex_lock(&ha->vport_lock);
> /*
> @@ -75,8 +76,9 @@ qla24xx_deallocate_vp_id(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
> * ensures no active vp_list traversal while the vport is
> removed
> * from the queue)
> */
> - wait_event_timeout(vha->vref_waitq, !atomic_read(&vha-
> >vref_count),
> - 10*HZ);
> + for (i = 0; i < 10 && atomic_read(&vha->vref_count); i++)
> + wait_event_timeout(vha->vref_waitq,
> + atomic_read(&vha->vref_count), HZ);
Are you missing a negation in this last line?
Also, what's the point of adding this loop?
QT: good catch. The idea is to not sleep the full 10Hz, if the vref_count already reaches zero or reaches zero under 10Hz. Otherwise, loop/wait for 10Hz. We're trying to get NPIV tear down to go faster.
> --- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_os.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_os.c
> @@ -1115,9 +1115,14 @@ static inline int
> test_fcport_count(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
> void
> qla2x00_wait_for_sess_deletion(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
> {
> + u8 i;
> +
> qla2x00_mark_all_devices_lost(vha, 0);
>
> - wait_event_timeout(vha->fcport_waitQ, test_fcport_count(vha),
> 10*HZ);
> + for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
> + wait_event_timeout(vha->fcport_waitQ,
> test_fcport_count(vha),
> + HZ);
> +
> flush_workqueue(vha->hw->wq);
> }
Perhaps here, the loop should be exited if test_fcport_count(vha) gets
TRUE? And again, why is the loop necessary?
QT: Yes. Same answer as above with the looping.
Regards
Martin
