From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] scsi-mq prototype discussion Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:53:32 +0000 Message-ID: <1373698410.2922.10.camel@dabdike> References: <1373588612.7397.447.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <20130712010223.GA15673@kroah.com> <1373592815.7397.477.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> <51DFDFF5.80702@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51DFDFF5.80702@suse.de> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , Jens Axboe , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , James Smart , linux-scsi , LKML , "kmo@daterainc.com" , target-devel , Andrew Vasquez , Tejun Heo , Christoph Hellwig , "scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:52 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 07/12/2013 03:33 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 18:02 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:23:32PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > >>> Drilling down the work items ahead of a real mainline push is high on > >>> priority list for discussion. > >>> > >>> The parties to be included in such a discussion are: > >>> > >>> - Jens Axboe (blk-mq author) > >>> - James Bottomley (scsi maintainer) > >>> - Christoph Hellwig (scsi) > >>> - Martin Petersen (scsi) > >>> - Tejun Heo (block + libata) > >>> - Hannes Reinecke (scsi error recovery) > >>> - Kent Overstreet (block, per-cpu ida) > >>> - Stephen Cameron (scsi-over-pcie driver) > >>> - Andrew Vasquez (qla2xxx LLD) > >>> - James Smart (lpfc LLD) > >> > >> Isn't this something that should have been discussed at the storage > >> mini-summit a few months ago? > > > > The scsi-mq prototype, along with blk-mq (in it's current form) did not > > exist a few short months ago. ;) > > > >> It seems very specific to one subsystem to be a kernel summit topic, > >> don't you think? > > > > It's no more subsystem specific than half of the other proposals so far, > > and given it's reach across multiple subsystems (block, scsi, target), > > and the amount of off-list interest on the topic, I think it would make > > a good candidate for discussion. > > > And it'll open up new approaches which previously were dismissed, > like re-implementing multipathing on top of scsi-mq, giving us the > single scsi device like other UNIX systems. > > Also I do think there's quite some synergy to be had, as with blk-mq > we could nail each queue to a processor, which would eliminate the > need for locking. > Which could be useful for other subsystems, too. Lets start with discussing this on the list, please, and then see where we go from there ... James