From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Raviv Shvili <rshvili@codeaurora.org>
Cc: scsi-misc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
"open list:SCSI SUBSYSTEM" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: requests completion handling
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:27:42 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1377768462.2223.70.camel@dabdike> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1377766493-5269-1-git-send-email-rshvili@codeaurora.org>
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 11:54 +0300, Raviv Shvili wrote:
> The patch solves the request completion report order. At the current
> implementation, when multiple requests end at the same interrupt call,
> the requests reported as completed according to a bitmap scan from the
> lowest tags to the highest, regardless the requests priority. That cause
> to a priority unfairness and starvation of requests with a high tags.
It does? Why? What seems to happen is that you loop over all the
pending requests and call done for them. The way SCSI handles done
commands is that it queues them to the softirq, so there doesn't look to
be any real unfairness problem here.
> SCSI Architecture Model 5 defines 3 task-attributes that are part of each
> SCSI command, and integrated into each Command UPIU. The task-attribute is
> for the device usage, it determines the order in which the device
> prioritizes the requests.
> The task-attributes according to their priority are (from high to low):
> HEAD OF QUEUE, ORDERED and SIMPLE. There is a queue per task-attribute.
> Each request is assigned to one of the above sw queues
> according to its task attribute field.
> Requests which are not SCSI commands (native UFS) will be assigned to
> the lowest priority queue, since there is no much difference between
> completing it first or last..
>
> When request is completed, we go over the queues (from
> the queue's highest priority to the lowest) and report
> the completion.
>
> Requests are removed from the queue in case of command completion
> or when aborting pending command.
Since we never use anything other than SIMPLE attributes, this rather
looks like a solution in search of a problem.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-29 9:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-29 8:54 [RFC/PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: requests completion handling Raviv Shvili
2013-08-29 9:27 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2013-08-29 17:37 ` Yaniv Gardi
2013-08-29 18:36 ` James Bottomley
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=1377768462.2223.70.camel@dabdike \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rshvili@codeaurora.org \
--cc=scsi-misc@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).