From: yangxingui <yangxingui@huawei.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>, <yanaijie@huawei.com>,
<jejb@linux.ibm.com>, <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
<damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>
Cc: <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@huawei.com>, <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
<chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>, <kangfenglong@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] scsi: libsas: Fix exp-attached end device cannot be scanned in again after probe failed
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:01:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f408257-c516-8de1-4b3a-db77b0aa816f@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4ad0886-6148-4714-b91e-3f669d438dcf@oracle.com>
Hi, John
On 2024/6/18 23:21, John Garry wrote:
> On 18/06/2024 14:10, yangxingui wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We found that it is judged as broadcast flutter when the
>>>>>> exp-attached end
>>>>>> device reconnects after probe failed, as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [78779.654026] sas: broadcast received: 0
>>>>>> [78779.654037] sas: REVALIDATING DOMAIN on port 0, pid:10
>>>>>> [78779.654680] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05 change count has
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> [78779.662977] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05 originated
>>>>>> BROADCAST(CHANGE)
>>>>>> [78779.662986] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05 new device attached
>>>>>> [78779.663079] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05:U:8 attached:
>>>>>> 500e004aaaaaaa05 (stp)
>>>>>> [78779.693542] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:b4:02.0: dev[16:5] found
>>>>>> [78779.701155] sas: done REVALIDATING DOMAIN on port 0, pid:10,
>>>>>> res 0x0
>>>>>> [78779.707864] sas: Enter sas_scsi_recover_host busy: 0 failed: 0
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> [78835.161307] sas: --- Exit sas_scsi_recover_host: busy: 0
>>>>>> failed: 0 tries: 1
>>>>>> [78835.171344] sas: sas_probe_sata: for exp-attached device
>>>>>> 500e004aaaaaaa05 returned -19
>>>>>> [78835.180879] hisi_sas_v3_hw 0000:b4:02.0: dev[16:5] is gone
>>>>>> [78835.187487] sas: broadcast received: 0
>>>>>> [78835.187504] sas: REVALIDATING DOMAIN on port 0, pid:10
>>>>>> [78835.188263] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05 change count has
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> [78835.195870] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05 originated
>>>>>> BROADCAST(CHANGE)
>>>>>> [78835.195875] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f rediscovering phy05
>>>>>> [78835.196022] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05:U:A attached:
>>>>>> 500e004aaaaaaa05 (stp)
>>>>>> [78835.196026] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy05 broadcast flutter
>>>>>> [78835.197615] sas: done REVALIDATING DOMAIN on port 0, pid:10,
>>>>>> res 0x0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cause of the problem is that the related ex_phy's
>>>>>> attached_sas_addr was
>>>>>> not cleared after the end device probe failed. In order to solve
>>>>>> the above
>>>>>> problem, a function sas_ex_unregister_end_dev() is defined to
>>>>>> clear the
>>>>>> ex_phy information and unregister the end device after the
>>>>>> exp-attached end
>>>>>> device probe failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you just manually clear the ex_phy's attached_sas_addr at the
>>>>> appropiate point (along with calling sas_unregister_dev())? It
>>>>> seems that we are using heavy-handed approach in calling
>>>>> sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(), which does the clearing and much more.
>>>>
>>>> I just tried it and it worked. If we only clear ex_phy's
>>>> attached_sas_addr, there is no need to call sas_destruct_ports(). We
>>>> are currently using sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr() which will add
>>>> the port to sas_port_del_list, so we need to call
>>>> sas_destruct_ports() separately to delete the port.
>>>>
>>>> Should we also delete the port after the devices probe failed?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. Please check it.
>>>
>>> sas_fail_probe() would still call sas_unregister_dev(), as required.
>>>
>>> And you said that the sas_fail_probe() probe call would be
>>> asynchronous to sas_revalidate_domainin(). I actually expected you to
>>> have the new call to sas_destruct_ports() at the top of
>>> sas_revalidate_domainin(), like v2, but it is in sas_probe_devices().
>>>
>>> Anyway, please check whether you require this additional call to
>>> delete the port.
>>>
>> Sorry, there was something wrong with the previous process description.
>> the correct is:
>>
>> 1. REVALIDATING DOMAIN
>> 2. new device attached, create port,etc.
>> 4. done REVALIDATING DOMAIN
>> 5. @out, handle parent->port->sas_port_del_list
>> 6. sas_probe_devices()
>> 7. if device probe failed in step 6 and call
>> sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(), then add phy->port->list to
>> parent->port->sas_port_del_list // port won't delete
>>
>> 8. next, REVALIDATING DOMAIN
>> 9. new device attached
>> 10. new port create failed, as port already exits.
>>
>>
>> So, v3 delete port at then end of sas_probe_devices(). And if we don't
>> use sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr() follow your suggestion then we
>> don't need to call sas_destruct_ports().
>
> I am finding it hard to follow you now.
I'm sorry for that. ^-^
>
> Can you show the complete change which you think that we now require to
> fix this issue?
>
Okay, I'll update a new version.
Thanks,
Xingui
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-19 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-13 12:23 Xingui Yang
2024-06-18 8:55 ` John Garry
2024-06-18 11:45 ` yangxingui
2024-06-18 12:08 ` John Garry
2024-06-18 13:10 ` yangxingui
2024-06-18 15:21 ` John Garry
2024-06-19 1:01 ` yangxingui [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2f408257-c516-8de1-4b3a-db77b0aa816f@huawei.com \
--to=yangxingui@huawei.com \
--cc=chenxiang66@hisilicon.com \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=kangfenglong@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
--cc=yanaijie@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®