Arne Redlich wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> hare@xxxxxxx (Hannes Reinecke) writes:
>
>> This adds a new SPC-3 ALUA hardware handler for multipathing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
>
> <snip>
>
>> +#define TPGS_STATE_OPTIMIZED 0x0
>> +#define TPGS_STATE_NONOPTIMIZED 0x1
>> +#define TPGS_STATE_STANDBY 0x2
>> +#define TPGS_STATE_UNAVAILABLE 0x3
>> +#define TPGS_STATE_OFFLINE 0xe
>
> SPC-3 (at least the draft, rev 23 I'm looking at) doesn't know an
> 'Offline' state - I think it's a SPC-4 feature. So maybe 'Unavailable'
> should be interpreted as path failure as well / instead?
>
It is SPC-4. And if the state is unavailable, we can try to
activate it; spc3r23 says (5.8.2.4.5):
Therefore it may not be possible to transition from this state to
either the active/optimized, active/non-optimized or standby states.
But consequently it _may_ be possible, so we should at least try.
If that fails (ie if SET TARGET PORT GROUPS returns
an error) we'll fail the path anyway.
No harm in trying.
> <snip>
>
>> +/*
>> + * SET TARGET GROUP STATES endio handler
>> + *
>> + * We only have to test here if we should resubmit the command;
>> + * any other error is assumed as a failure.
>> + * Maybe we should analyze the sensebuffer here, too.
>> + */
>> +static void stpg_endio(struct request *req, int error)
>> +{
>> + struct hw_handler *hwh = req->end_io_data;
>> + struct alua_handler *h = hwh->context;
>> +
>> + switch(host_byte(error)) {
>> + case DID_BUS_BUSY:
>> + if (!h->retry)
>> + break;
>> + h->retry--;
>> + case DID_REQUEUE:
>> + case DID_IMM_RETRY:
>> + dm_enqueue_hw_workq(hwh);
>> + goto done;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (had_failures(req, error)) {
>> + if (h->tpgs & TPGS_MODE_IMPLICIT) {
>> + /* Ignore errors; the array will figure it out */
>> + DMWARN("%s: stpg failed %x, disabling explicit mode",
>> + h->path->dev->name, error);
>> + h->tpgs &= ~TPGS_MODE_EXPLICIT;
>> + dm_enqueue_hw_workq(hwh);
>> + } else {
>> + DMWARN("%s: stpg failed %x, disable path",
>> + h->path->dev->name, error);
>> + dm_pg_init_complete(h->path, MP_FAIL_PATH);
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + DMWARN("%s: port group %02x new state %c",
>> + h->path->dev->name, h->group_id,
>> + print_alua_state(h->state) );
>> + dm_pg_init_complete(h->path, 0);
>
> Hmmm, maybe I'm just missing something so CMIIW, but I think the PG
> state should be retrieved once more before finally calling
> dm_pg_init_complete(), because the target might return the STPG command
> before the transition has completed (SPC-3, 6.31). This could confuse
> application clients?
>
Hmm. Spec isn't exactly clear here. One would expect that these arrays
would have set the T_SUP bit in REPORT TARGET PORT GROUPS, and set the
ALUA state to 'TRANSITIONING' accordingly. But we catch the relevant
sense codes as per SPC-3, so we should retry it properly.
And it's not that I've actually seen an array implementing this, so
it's a bit academic currently.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
