In a prior posting to linux-scsi on the fc transport and workq
deadlocks, we noted a second error that did not have a patch:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=114467847711383&w=2
- There's a deadlock where scsi_remove_target() has to sit behind
scsi_scan_target() due to contention over the scan_lock().
Subsequently we posted a request for comments about the deadlock:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=114469358829500&w=2
This posting resolves the second error. Here's what we now understand,
and are implementing:
If the lldd deletes the rport while a scan is active, the sdev's queue
is blocked which stops the issuing of commands associated with the scan.
At this point, the scan stalls, and does so with the shost->scan_mutex held.
If, at this point, if any scan or delete request is made on the host, it
will stall waiting for the scan_mutex.
For the FC transport, we queue all delete work to a single workq.
So, things worked fine when competing with the scan, as long as the
target blocking the scan was the same target at the top of our delete
workq, as the delete workq routine always unblocked just prior to
requesting the delete. Unfortunately, if the top of our delete workq
was for a different target, we deadlock. Additionally, if the target
blocking scan returned, we were unblocking it in the scan workq routine,
which really won't execute until the existing stalled scan workq
completes (e.g. we're re-scheduling it while it is in the midst of its
execution).
This patch moves the unblock out of the workq routines and moves it to
the context that is scheduling the work. This ensures that at some point,
we will unblock the target that is blocking scan. Please note, however,
that the deadlock condition may still occur while it waits for the
transport to timeout an unblock on a target. Worst case, this is bounded
by the transport dev_loss_tmo (default: 30 seconds).
Finally, Michael Reed deserves the credit for the bulk of this patch,
analysis, and it's testing. Thank you for your help.
Note: The request for comments statements about the gross-ness of the
scan_mutex still stand.
Signed-off-by: Michael Reed <mdr@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>
Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
James Smart
a0785edff7