On 3/23/23 5:21 AM, Benjamin Block wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 09:24:32AM +0800, yebin (H) wrote: >> On 2023/3/21 22:22, Benjamin Block wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 04:42:04PM +0800, Ye Bin wrote: >>>> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> When do follow test: >>>> Step1: echo "recovery" > /sys/class/scsi_host/host0/state >>> >>> Hmm, that make me wonder, what potential use-case this is for? Just >>> testing? >> >> Thank you for your reply. >> Actually, I'm looking for a way to temporarily stop sending IO to the >> driver. >> Setting the state of the host to recovery can do this, but I changed >> the state to running and found that the process could not be woken up. >> I don't know what the purpose of designing this sysfs interface was. >> But this modification can solve the effect I want to achieve. > > My first thought when seeing this was that maybe we should also limit > this interface to say `SHOST_RUNNING` and `SHOST_RECOVERY` (similar to > what is done in `store_state_field()`). > That would limit the amount of corner cases drastically. > > And in case of setting `SHOST_RUNNING` after the scsi host was set to > `SHOST_RECOVERY`, we could also make use of the already existing > function `scsi_restart_operations()` to handle the restart in the same > way as EH does. > I agree we should limit the states we can set. It doesn't make sense for userspace to be able to set states like SHOST_CANCEL and I think it would later break functions like scsi_remove_host. Maybe instead of allowing SHOST_RECOVERY to be used by userspace we want a new state SHOST_BLOCKED which just does the specific operation we want. If we re-use SHOST_RECOVERY for userspace blocking IO there could be issues later on because that state also means we are going to be performing the eh callouts and not just stopping IO. Or maybe instead of a different state we just add another shost field similar to tmf_in_progress which forces scsi_queue_rq to not queue IO to the drivers.
