From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0DBC54EED for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:36:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231646AbjAXUgb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:36:31 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47782 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229633AbjAXUga (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:36:30 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f44.google.com (mail-pj1-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C233F1BFA; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:36:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-f44.google.com with SMTP id h5-20020a17090a9c0500b0022bb85eb35dso10811635pjp.3; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:36:29 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8/h5cdpjRST1tl1jAA0QM4pzIDzSKfXSQyvbgQ5V7UI=; b=s1JSnH4yxd50ZpzdMNvGJ7vzjcvU94PczcWNfnPReS+wxqUgjwYjidYaSV/yvRZ3/m ahIiuqQXr8f5XsPOAYyuwDVKqhKc1U8RjQlan+3BXs5e8vWfIzqTpX6jJrEQ03JZxbTP F1CyjFNCA9cbzokC/IMGl9GSmVFO6aAvgzhuvpjmCYIqEH+vfTVAJSG3B5Q2lDpp6uFY oybiyKVzSSk+/4RM8JoxyDVWNz9tBwOEROQcWJNQkwgIWG/E00CP/omEpWk1xz/adKCC L32wE8ZoSXgq/Yw/QwRoN0y3W2GZILDclEmHBH8tFoFGwXQ2Hx429S5F6pm8skfP0cCI cMqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kqWvM46CPRnXT8MIsOTlW0pU3GD7W5OOP9c/zRjUuISk3HRGdUN YllAK786Xz4O1tcVvSoXEWc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXv9U1cKa4blP+iNmUDwB516eP9AOyJE595wNjrwWUujqYf1WecwrsQtbb7MVaYm1DiwxBadrg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1b4f:b0:226:d23b:8037 with SMTP id nv15-20020a17090b1b4f00b00226d23b8037mr31670113pjb.33.1674592589250; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:36:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:15c:211:201:c69a:cf2c:dc2d:7829? ([2620:15c:211:201:c69a:cf2c:dc2d:7829]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y1-20020a17090a600100b002262ab43327sm8756762pji.26.2023.01.24.12.36.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:36:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:36:26 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/18] block: introduce duration-limits priority class Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche To: Niklas Cassel , Paolo Valente , Jens Axboe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Hannes Reinecke , Damien Le Moal , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <20230124190308.127318-1-niklas.cassel@wdc.com> <20230124190308.127318-2-niklas.cassel@wdc.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 1/24/23 11:27, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Implementing duration limit support using the I/O priority mechanism > makes it impossible to configure the I/O priority for commands that have > a duration limit. Shouldn't the duration limit be independent of the I/O > priority? Am I perhaps missing something? (replying to my own e-mail) In SAM-6 I found the following: "The device server may use the duration expiration time to determine the order of processing commands with the SIMPLE task attribute within the task set. A difference in duration expiration time between commands may override other scheduling considerations (e.g., different times to access different logical block addresses or vendor specific scheduling considerations). Processing of a collection of commands with different command duration limit settings should cause a command with an earlier duration expiration time to complete with status sooner than a command with a later duration expiration time." Do I understand correctly that it is optional for a SCSI device to interpret the command duration as a priority and that this is not mandatory? Thanks, Bart.