From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [RFC] scsi: reduce protection of scan_mutex in scsi_remove_device Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:20:23 +0000 Message-ID: <1492809623.2499.4.camel@sandisk.com> References: <20170421211302.2667649-1-songliubraving@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from esa3.hgst.iphmx.com ([216.71.153.141]:22244 "EHLO esa3.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1041465AbdDUVU1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:20:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170421211302.2667649-1-songliubraving@fb.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <6264AB9F091AE84D85F5887D18187FE1@namprd04.prod.outlook.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "songliubraving@fb.com" Cc: "hch@infradead.org" On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 14:13 -0700, Song Liu wrote: > On the other hand, some devices do long latency IO during deletion, > for example, sd_shutdown() may do sync cache and/or start_stop. > It is not necessary for these commands to run in series. Have you noticed my patch series that makes sd_shutdown() submit the SYNCHRONIZE CACHE command asynchronously? Have you tried whether that patch series would be a good alternative? Thanks, Bart.=