Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:15:13 -0500 | From | Mike Christie <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors |
| |
On 08/25/2010 10:59 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25 2010 at 4:00am -0400, > Kiyoshi Ueda<k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote: > >>> I'm not sure how to proceed here. How much work would >>> discerning between transport and IO errors take? If it can't be done >>> quickly enough the retry logic can be kept around to keep the old >>> behavior but that already was a broken behavior, so... :-( >> >> I'm not sure how long will it take. > > We first need to understand what direction we want to go with this. We > currently have 2 options. But any other ideas are obviously welcome. > > 1) > Mike Christie has a patchset that introduce more specific > target/transport/host error codes. Mike shared these pointers but he'd > have to put the work in to refresh them: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=112487427230642&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=112487427306501&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=112487431524436&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=112487431524350&w=2 > > errno.h new EXYZ > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=107715299008231&w=2 > > add block layer blkdev.h error values > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=107961883915068&w=2 > > add block layer blkdev.h error values (v2 convert more drivers) > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=112487427230642&w=2 > > I think that patchset's appoach is fairly disruptive just to be able to > train upper layers to differentiate (e.g. mpath). But in the end maybe > that change takes the code in a more desirable direction?
I think it is more disruptive, but is the cleaner approach in the end.
#2 looks hacky. In upper layers, we will have checks for dasd and other AOE and other drivers. And then #2 does not even work for filesystems (ext said they need this).
> > 2) > Another option is Hannes' approach of having DM consume req->errors and > SCSI sense more directly. >
| |