From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi : set target can_queue from devinfo flags Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:38:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1210793893.3075.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1210700704.16304.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from med195e42.tmodns.net ([66.94.25.237]:35265 "EHLO atmailx07.tmomail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309AbYENVxf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 17:53:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1210700704.16304.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 13:45 -0400, James Smart wrote: > This patch, discussed in the initial thread on target can_queue limits > (see http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=120944296225094&w=2 ) > allows the target can_queue limit to be obtained from the device list based on > Inquiry data obtained during scan. > > I have pinged several of the array vendors to supply target-port level values > for their arrays. Hopefully, we will see them populate the device list with some > real values shortly. > > This patch was cut against scsi-misc-2.6, and depends on Mike Christies patches > contained in the original thread. Just from a point of first principles, what makes you think the target port queue depth of an array is anything like constant? All the information I've got back from array vendors over the years leads me to conclude that it's dynamically determined based on resources available at the time the array services the request. Additionally, I've been told that even a heuristic rule of thumb value varies with the array cache size (which is a quantity not reflected in the inquiry strings). My best guess for the way of handling this is that we should be using the Doug Leaford track_queue_full infrastructure but on a per target bases. James