On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 15:21 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 11:45 -0700, Jun Wu wrote:
> > The test setup includes one host and one target. The target exposes 10
> > hard drives (or 10 LUNs) on one fcoe port. The single initiator runs
> > 10 fio processes simultaneously to the 10 target drives through fcoe
> > vn2vn. This is a simple configuration that other people may also want
> > to try.
> >
> > >Exchange 0x6e4 is aborted and then target still sending frame, while
> > >later should not occur but first setting up abort with 0 msec timeout
> > >doesn not look correct either and it is different that 8000 ms on
> > >initiator side.
> >
> > Should target stop sending frame after abort? I still see a lot of 0
> > msec messages on target side. Is this something that should be
> > addressed?
> >
> > >Reducing retries could narrow down to early aborts is the cause here,
> > >can you try with REC disabled on initiator side for that using this
> > >change ?
> >
> > By disabling REC have you confirmed that the early aborts is the
> > cause? Is the abort caused by 0 msec timeout?
> >
>
> The 0 msec timeout still look really suspicious..
>
> IIRC, these timeout values are exchanged in the FLOGI request packet,
> and/or in a separate Request Timeout Value (RTV) packet..
>
> It might be worthwhile to track down where these zero-length settings
> are coming from, as it might be a indication of what's wrong.
>
> How about the following patch to dump these values..?
>
> Also just curious, have you tried running these two hosts in
> point-to-point mode without the switch to see if the same types of
> issues occur..? It might be useful to help isolate the problem space a
> bit.
>
> Vasu, any other ideas here..?
>
Your patch is good to debug 0 msec value, however this may not the issue
since these are from incoming aborts processing and by then IO is
aborted and would cause seq_send failures as I explained in other
response.
Nab, Shall tcm_fc take some action on seq_send failures to the target
core which could help in slowing down host requests rate above the fcoe
transport ?
Thanks,
Vasu
> --nab
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c
> index e01a298..72b8676 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c
> @@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ static void fc_lport_flogi_fill(struct fc_lport *lport,
> sp->sp_tot_seq = htons(255); /* seq. we accept */
> sp->sp_rel_off = htons(0x1f);
> sp->sp_e_d_tov = htonl(lport->e_d_tov);
> + printk("fc_lport_flogi_fill sp->sp_e_d_tov: %u\n", sp->sp_e_d_tov);
>
> cp->cp_rdfs = htons((u16) lport->mfs);
> cp->cp_con_seq = htons(255);
> @@ -1766,7 +1767,9 @@ void fc_lport_flogi_resp(struct fc_seq *sp, struct fc_frame *fp,
>
> csp_flags = ntohs(flp->fl_csp.sp_features);
> r_a_tov = ntohl(flp->fl_csp.sp_r_a_tov);
> + printk("fc_lport_flogi_resp: r_a_tov: %u\n", r_a_tov);
> e_d_tov = ntohl(flp->fl_csp.sp_e_d_tov);
> + printk("fc_lport_flogi_resp: e_d_tov %u\n", e_d_tov);
> if (csp_flags & FC_SP_FT_EDTR)
> e_d_tov /= 1000000;
>
> @@ -1795,6 +1798,9 @@ void fc_lport_flogi_resp(struct fc_seq *sp, struct fc_frame *fp,
> fc_lport_enter_dns(lport);
> }
>
> + printk("fc_lport_flogi_resp: lport->e_d_tov: %u\n", lport->e_d_tov);
> + printk("fc_lport_flogi_resp: lport->r_a_tov: %u\n", lport->r_a_tov);
> +
> out:
> fc_frame_free(fp);
> err:
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c
> index 589ff9a..4cdb055 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,9 @@ static struct fc_rport_priv *fc_rport_create(struct fc_lport *lport,
> rdata->event = RPORT_EV_NONE;
> rdata->flags = FC_RP_FLAGS_REC_SUPPORTED;
> rdata->e_d_tov = lport->e_d_tov;
> + printk("fc_rport_create: rdata->e_d_tov: %u\n", rdata->e_d_tov);
> rdata->r_a_tov = lport->r_a_tov;
> + printk("fc_rport_create: rdata->r_a_tov: %u\n", rdata->r_a_tov);
> rdata->maxframe_size = FC_MIN_MAX_PAYLOAD;
> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&rdata->retry_work, fc_rport_timeout);
> INIT_WORK(&rdata->event_work, fc_rport_work);
> @@ -286,7 +288,9 @@ static void fc_rport_work(struct work_struct *work)
> rpriv->rp_state = rdata->rp_state;
> rpriv->flags = rdata->flags;
> rpriv->e_d_tov = rdata->e_d_tov;
> + printk("fc_rport_work: rpriv->e_d_tov: %u\n", rpriv->e_d_tov);
> rpriv->r_a_tov = rdata->r_a_tov;
> + printk("rpriv->r_a_tov: rpriv->r_a_tov: %u\n", rpriv->r_a_tov);
> mutex_unlock(&rdata->rp_mutex);
>
> if (rport_ops && rport_ops->event_callback) {
> @@ -638,10 +642,14 @@ static int fc_rport_login_complete(struct fc_rport_priv *rdata,
> * E_D_TOV is not valid on an incoming FLOGI request.
> */
> e_d_tov = ntohl(flogi->fl_csp.sp_e_d_tov);
> + printk("fc_rport_login_complete e_d_tov: %u\n", e_d_tov);
> if (csp_flags & FC_SP_FT_EDTR)
> e_d_tov /= 1000000;
> - if (e_d_tov > rdata->e_d_tov)
> + if (e_d_tov > rdata->e_d_tov) {
> + printk("fc_rport_login_complete rdata->e_d_tov %u\n",
> + rdata->e_d_tov);
> rdata->e_d_tov = e_d_tov;
> + }
> }
> rdata->maxframe_size = fc_plogi_get_maxframe(flogi, lport->mfs);
> return 0;
> @@ -690,8 +698,11 @@ static void fc_rport_flogi_resp(struct fc_seq *sp, struct fc_frame *fp,
> if (!flogi)
> goto bad;
> r_a_tov = ntohl(flogi->fl_csp.sp_r_a_tov);
> - if (r_a_tov > rdata->r_a_tov)
> + printk("fc_rport_flogi_resp r_a_tov: %u\n", r_a_tov);
> + if (r_a_tov > rdata->r_a_tov) {
> + printk("fc_rport_flogi_resp rdata->r_a_tov: %u\n", rdata->r_a_tov);
> rdata->r_a_tov = r_a_tov;
> + }
>
> if (rdata->ids.port_name < lport->wwpn)
> fc_rport_enter_plogi(rdata);
> @@ -971,6 +982,7 @@ static void fc_rport_enter_plogi(struct fc_rport_priv *rdata)
> return;
> }
> rdata->e_d_tov = lport->e_d_tov;
> + printk("fc_rport_enter_plogi: rdata->e_d_tov: %u\n", rdata->e_d_tov);
>
> if (!lport->tt.elsct_send(lport, rdata->ids.port_id, fp, ELS_PLOGI,
> fc_rport_plogi_resp, rdata,
> @@ -1183,12 +1195,16 @@ static void fc_rport_rtv_resp(struct fc_seq *sp, struct fc_frame *fp,
> if (tov == 0)
> tov = 1;
> rdata->r_a_tov = tov;
> + printk("fc_rport_rtv_resp rdata->r_a_tov: %u\n",
> + rdata->r_a_tov);
> tov = ntohl(rtv->rtv_e_d_tov);
> if (toq & FC_ELS_RTV_EDRES)
> tov /= 1000000;
> if (tov == 0)
> tov = 1;
> rdata->e_d_tov = tov;
> + printk("fc_rport_rtv_resp rdata->e_d_tov: %u\n",
> + rdata->e_d_tov);
> }
> }
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
