From: Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com>
To: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
Martin Peschke3 <MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH + RFC] Beginning of some updates to scsi mid layer
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:19:59 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10206281819.ZM1024786@classic.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> "Re: [PATCH + RFC] Beginning of some updates to scsi mid layer" (Jun 28, 3:39am)
On Jun 28, 3:39am, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 08:08:01AM +0200, Martin Peschke3 wrote:
> > as you describe below. This condition results in a starvation
> > of I/O for that particular device. The command which was rejected
> > with QUEUE_FULL is moved into the ml queue and never retried
> > since the mid layer only triggers a retry when another command for
> > that device returns. But there is no other command which
> > could return.
> > We think this needs to be fixed in the ml code (e.g. retry periodically
> > triggered by timer?). Our current workaround is to map QUEUE_FULL
>
> Yes, the answer to this problem involves a timer. Basically what I
> suggest (and do in my driver) is set it so that the driver waits until
> either A) a command is completed or B) 10ms has passed before sending the
> command back out, whichever comes first. Since most drives have had
> plenty of time to complete one or more commands in 10ms, we assume that
> even if we haven't got a completion yet that the drive likely has some
> freed up resources and so we try again.
Do you change the queue depth that you use based on a QUEUE_FULL, then?
If so, then I presume you have some minimum, such as two or four
commands . . . ?
jeremy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-29 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-28 6:08 [PATCH + RFC] Beginning of some updates to scsi mid layer Martin Peschke3
2002-06-28 7:39 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-29 1:19 ` Jeremy Higdon [this message]
2002-06-29 2:04 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-06-29 10:05 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-29 10:37 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-01 21:02 ` Gérard Roudier
2002-07-01 19:08 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-01 19:15 ` Doug Ledford
2002-07-01 19:23 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-01 19:59 ` Doug Ledford
2002-07-01 20:17 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-07-02 11:27 ` Rogier Wolff
2002-06-29 10:10 ` Doug Ledford
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-28 8:25 Martin Peschke3
2002-06-28 11:22 ` Doug Ledford
[not found] <20020619014048.B8623@redhat.com>
2002-06-19 17:44 ` Pete Zaitcev
2002-06-19 17:55 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-06-19 18:25 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-28 5:41 ` Jeremy Higdon
2002-06-28 7:37 ` Doug Ledford
2002-06-19 0:47 Doug Ledford
2002-06-19 21:15 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-06-20 19:45 ` Doug Ledford
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=10206281819.ZM1024786@classic.engr.sgi.com \
--to=jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com \
--cc=MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zaitcev@redhat.com \
/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