From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
To: Lan Tran <transter@gmail.com>
Cc: Douglas Gilbert <dougg@torque.net>,
"Qi, Yanling" <yanling.qi@engenio.com>, Dave Olien <dmo@osdl.org>,
Tim Pepper <tpepper@gmail.com>,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about Request Sense case in scsi_lib.c
Date: 14 Oct 2004 10:25:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1097767531.1717.20.camel@mulgrave> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac71172a0410132349715aa9b4@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 01:49, Lan Tran wrote:
> And it was due to the fact that when a bio is sent down to the
> mid-layer, it would come back with another bio chained to it, so when
> the original bio was retried, the number of segments that were mapped
> (i.e. 2, one from each bio) did not match the value stored in
> cmd->use_sg (i.e. 1).
This sounds a bit unlikely, since the SCSI layer never deals with bios
per se, it merely maps a request (which is a collection of bios). What
was the evidence that this was happening?
I can see the reverse being true: the scsi request is partially complete
when requeued, so some of the bios are fully complete and somehow this
causes a miscalculation in the segments. However, the miscalculation
has to be that we undercount the number of needed request slots, and
this looks hard to do.
> I still haven't figured out why chained bios
> from indepedent IO requests are returned from the mid-layer ... but
> may be a similar issue you're seeing here?
It sounds similar. The problem seems to be in requeuing somehow. I'm
going to dig out my old requeueing simulator and see if I can reproduce
it.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-14 15:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <53CF1076699CD711B7DD0002A51363F1072A6E3A@exw-ks.ks.lsil.com>
2004-10-13 21:46 ` Question about Request Sense case in scsi_lib.c 'Dave Olien'
2004-10-13 21:56 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-13 22:09 ` 'Dave Olien'
2004-10-14 17:52 ` 'Dave Olien'
2004-10-14 18:05 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-14 20:39 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-14 0:30 ` Douglas Gilbert
2004-10-14 6:49 ` Lan Tran
2004-10-14 15:25 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2004-10-12 0:00 Dave Olien
[not found] ` <eada2a07041012092973d35415@mail.gmail.com>
2004-10-12 16:31 ` Tim Pepper
2004-10-12 16:59 ` Dave Olien
2004-10-12 17:13 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-12 17:59 ` Dave Olien
2004-10-12 20:13 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-10-12 20:44 ` Dave Olien
2004-10-13 2:10 ` Douglas Gilbert
2004-10-13 17:56 ` Dave Olien
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=1097767531.1717.20.camel@mulgrave \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=dmo@osdl.org \
--cc=dougg@torque.net \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tpepper@gmail.com \
--cc=transter@gmail.com \
--cc=yanling.qi@engenio.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