From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Jon Escombe <lists@dresco.co.uk>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@fenrus.demon.nl>,
Dan Aloni <da-x@monatomic.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_execute_async() should add to the tail of the queue
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:44:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061219184453.GD5010@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <458830B9.90107@dresco.co.uk>
On Tue, Dec 19 2006, Jon Escombe wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 10:35 +0200, Dan Aloni wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> scsi_execute_async() has replaced scsi_do_req() a few versions ago,
> >>> but it also incurred a change of behavior. I noticed that over-queuing
> >>> a SCSI device using that function causes I/Os to be starved from
> >>> low-level queuing for no justified reason.
> >>>
> >>> I think it makes much more sense to perserve the original behaviour
> >>> of scsi_do_req() and add the request to the tail of the queue.
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> some things should really be added to the head of the queue, like
> >> maintenance requests and error handling requests. Are you sure this is
> >> the right change? At least I'd expect 2 apis, one for a head and one for
> >> a "normal" queueing...
> >
> > It does sounds broken - head insertion should only be used for careful
> > internal commands, not be the default way user issued commands. Looking
> > at the current users, the patch makes sense to me.
> >
>
> It's worth noting that the hdaps disk protection patches rely on the
> current behaviour to add 'IDLE IMMEDIATE WITH UNLOAD' commands to the
> head of the queue.. Another function, or a new parameter for queue
> position would be needed to retain this functionality - any preference
> for either?
The hdaps disk protection should not be using the SCSI internal
function, so it should not be an issue. The block layer API exposes both
front/back/sort insertion possibilities.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-19 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-19 8:35 [PATCH] scsi_execute_async() should add to the tail of the queue Dan Aloni
2006-12-19 10:03 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-12-19 10:34 ` Dan Aloni
2006-12-20 23:50 ` Jeremy Linton
2006-12-19 11:26 ` Jens Axboe
2006-12-19 18:34 ` Jon Escombe
2006-12-19 18:44 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-12-19 0:02 Dan Aloni
2006-12-20 20:40 ` Steven Hayter
2006-12-21 7:12 ` Dan Aloni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061219184453.GD5010@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=arjan@fenrus.demon.nl \
--cc=da-x@monatomic.org \
--cc=eo@nebensachen.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@dresco.co.uk \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.