[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] path priority group and path state

Caushik, Ramesh wrote:

Given that some of the problems I am noticing in my testing relates to
mismatch between the path state recorded by the driver and the daemon, I
thought I will chime in with my questions / observations.
My setup consists of a dual port qla2312 controller connected to a JBOD
through a FC switch thus creating 2 paths A & B to the drive. I have all
the paths in one PG using round-robin selector and "queue if no path"
set. I run a bonnie++ transfer to the mounted drive, and then pull out
the path A connection. When the transfer switches to path B I reinsert A
and then after a little while pull out B and repeat this a few times.
Sometimes the transfer just hangs and the log messages indicate the
driver is queueing the i/o (both paths are marked faulty). This is what
seems to happen. When the cable on path A is pulled out the controller
receives a "LOOP DOWN" on that port and ALSO a "LIP RESET" on path B.
This causes i/o on both paths to return SCSI error and so both paths are
set faulty (some of the in-flight i/o on path B fails as a result of the
LIP RESET). However when the daemon checker loop wakes up and tests the
path (via checkfn) path B returns OK, and since the daemon will
reconfigure the paths only if newstate != oldstate it does not
reconfigure the path. As a result, we end up with a situation where the
driver marks path B as faulty due to i/o error in the path, and waits
for the daemon to reconfigure the path, while the daemon does not
reconfigure path B because the checkfn does not detect a state change.
First of all please tell me if this analyses is correct. If it is then
my suggestion is for the daemon checker loop to reinstate the path
anytime the there is a mismatch between the path state in the driver and
that returned by the checkfn, and not just based on the newstate !=
oldstate check. I am in the process of coding this up to see if it will
fix the problem. Meanwhile I would much appreciate any comments or
suggestions on this. Thanks,


Agreed : this is a real hole in the design.
Suggested solution seems sane.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]