On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 15:54 +0300, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> index f6097b89d5d3..6c99221d60aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> @@ -320,12 +320,11 @@ void scsi_device_unbusy(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> if (starget->can_queue > 0)
> atomic_dec(&starget->target_busy);
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> if (unlikely(scsi_host_in_recovery(shost) &&
> - (shost->host_failed || shost->host_eh_scheduled))) {
> - spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> + (shost->host_failed || shost->host_eh_scheduled)))
> scsi_eh_wakeup(shost);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
> - }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
>
> atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> }
> @@ -1503,6 +1502,13 @@ static inline int scsi_host_queue_ready(struct
> request_queue *q,
> spin_unlock_irq(shost->host_lock);
> out_dec:
> atomic_dec(&shost->host_busy);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(shost->host_lock);
> + if (unlikely(scsi_host_in_recovery(shost) &&
> + (shost->host_failed || shost->host_eh_scheduled)))
> + scsi_eh_wakeup(shost);
> + spin_unlock_irq(shost->host_lock);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1964,6 +1970,13 @@ static blk_status_t scsi_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> *hctx,
>
> out_dec_host_busy:
> atomic_dec(&shost->host_busy);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(shost->host_lock);
> + if (unlikely(scsi_host_in_recovery(shost) &&
> + (shost->host_failed || shost->host_eh_scheduled)))
> + scsi_eh_wakeup(shost);
> + spin_unlock_irq(shost->host_lock);
> +
> out_dec_target_busy:
> if (scsi_target(sdev)->can_queue > 0)
> atomic_dec(&scsi_target(sdev)->target_busy);
An important achievement of the scsi-mq code was removal of all
spin_lock_irq(shost->host_lock) statements from the hot path. The above
changes will have a significant negative performance impact, especially if
multiple LUNs associated with the same SCSI host are involved. Can the
reported race be fixed without slowing down the hot path significantly? I
think that both adding spin lock or smp_mb() calls in the hot path will
have a significant negative performance impact.
Thanks,
Bart.
