Re: [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 01/04] scsi: make scsi_send_eh_cmnd use its own timer instead of scmd->eh_timeout

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

 Hi, James.

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 23:31 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > 	scmd->eh_timeout is used to resolve the race between command
> > 	completion and timeout.  However, during error handling,
> > 	scsi_send_eh_cmnd uses scmd->eh_timeout.  This creates a race
> > 	condition between eh and normal completion for a request which
> > 	has timed out and in the process of error handling.  If the
> > 	request completes while scmd->eh_timeout is being used by eh,
> > 	eh timeout is lost and the command will be handled by both eh
> > 	and completion path.  This patch fixes the race by making
> > 	scsi_send_eh_cmnd() use its own timer.
> >
> > 	This patch adds shost->eh_timeout field.  The name of the
> > 	field equals scmd->eh_timeout which is used for normal command
> > 	timeout.  As this can be confusing, renaming scmd->eh_timeout
> > 	to something like scmd->cmd_timeout would be good.
> >
> > 	Reworked such that timeout race window is kept at minimal
> > 	level as pointed out by James Bottomley.
>
>
> This looks fine in principle.  However, three comments
>
> 1. If you're doing this, there's no further use for eh_timeout, so
> remove it (and preferably fix gdth_proc.c; however, it's better to break
> the compile of that driver than have it rely on a now defunct field).

 If you're talking about scmd->eh_timeout, it's our main timer for 
normal command timeouts.  If you're suggesting renaming it to something 
more apparant, I agree.  Maybe just scmd->timeout will do.

> 2. Use of eh_action is private to scsi_error.c, so you don't need to add
> a new field to the host, just make eh_action a pointer to a private
> eh_action structure which contains the timer and the semaphore.

 Sure.

> 3. To close a really tiny window where the running timer could race with
> the del_timer, it should probably be del_timer_sync().  The practical
> effect of this is nil, but it would be correct programming.

 Sorry, but, AFAICT, that wouldn't close any window.  We use timer 
pending for tie-breaker.  When scsi_eh_done() wins, timer never gets to 
run, and if scsi_eh_times_out() wins, the eh thread is woken up only 
after the last reference to the timer/eh is finished (up operation).  If 
I'm missing something, please point out.

 BTW, are you still keeping the bk tree up-to-date?  And, if so, until 
when are you gonna keep the bk tree?  I'm painfully trying to follow and 
convert all my trees to git, but I _really_ miss changeset browsing of 
bk.  Call me lazy but it was just too nice browsing the changesets only 
with mouse.  One way or the other, it's a shame.

 Thanks.

--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/