From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
To: Patrick Mansfield <patmans@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux SCSI list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH 5/5: scsi-scan-inq-timeout
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:48:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040421224843.GD643@tpkurt.garloff.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040421132454.A19685@beaverton.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2111 bytes --]
Hi Patrick,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:24:54PM -0700, Patrick Mansfield wrote:
> SCSI_TIMEOUT is 2 * HZ.
>
> So we defaulted to 6 seconds, and now we default to 5.5 seconds. Why?
True.
I have added half a second to be safe against 0.
Thus, I had the choice of rounding 6 to 6.5 or 5.5.
I chose 5.5, because the old value was chosen very conservative, as it
had to be enough for even sick devices. Now we have a boot parameter
to accomodate these, thus we can be less conservative. Thus 5.5.
> Why not get rid of the HZ/2, and set scsi_inq_timeout = SCSI_TIMEOUT/HZ +
> 4 so we default to 6 again?
>
> So if a device needs at least N + .5 seconds then just set the
> scsi_inq_timeout to N + 1.
Why do you dislike HZ/2. The number is computed by the compiler at
compile time ...
> > SCSI_LOG_SCAN_BUS(3, printk(KERN_INFO "scsi scan: 1st INQUIRY %s with"
> > " code 0x%x\n", sreq->sr_result ?
> > @@ -393,7 +400,7 @@ static void scsi_probe_lun(struct scsi_r
> > memset(inq_result, 0, possible_inq_resp_len);
> > scsi_wait_req(sreq, (void *) scsi_cmd,
> > (void *) inq_result,
> > - possible_inq_resp_len, SCSI_TIMEOUT + 4 * HZ, 3);
> > + possible_inq_resp_len, (1+scsi_inq_timeout)*(HZ/2), 3);
>
> IMO just make the two timeouts the same and avoid any potential problems
> (like some funky device always takes 4 seconds to reponsd to an INQUIRY).
It's really only the reset recivery time which makes us choose such long
times. Otherwise SCSI_TIMEOUT would be _plenty_ of time to answer an
INQUIRY. An INQUIRY is easier: No medium access is needed, see SPC3.
When this second INQUIRY is done, a first one has succeeded already, so
the recovery from the reset has happened already.
Anyway, if you dislike it, I don't care much. If the first INQUIRY
succeeded, it's very unlikely that the second one fails, so the timeout
is even less important in real life.
Regards,
--
Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> Cologne, DE
SUSE LINUX AG, Nuernberg, DE SUSE Labs (Head)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-21 22:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-18 18:57 Patches for SCSI scanning Kurt Garloff
2004-04-18 23:16 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-20 11:54 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 12:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-20 13:02 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 14:38 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-20 16:03 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 16:08 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 13:48 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:36 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 13:45 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:10 ` PATCH 1/5: scsi-scan-deprecate-forcelun Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:12 ` PATCH 2/5: scsi-scan-blist_replun Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-21 15:30 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 16:03 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:13 ` PATCH 3/5: scsi-scan-no-offl-pq-notcon Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 14:14 ` PATCH 4/5: scsi-scan-dont-att-pq-notcon Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-21 15:24 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:33 ` Mike Anderson
2004-04-21 15:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-04-21 16:08 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 16:18 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 16:55 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-21 22:51 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-22 20:39 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-22 20:45 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 16:58 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 16:16 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 15:40 ` James Bottomley
2004-04-21 14:14 ` PATCH 5/5: scsi-scan-inq-timeout Kurt Garloff
2004-04-21 20:24 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-21 22:48 ` Kurt Garloff [this message]
2004-04-21 23:49 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-20 16:26 ` Patches for SCSI scanning Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-20 16:42 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 17:44 ` Patrick Mansfield
2004-04-21 13:52 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-04-20 10:24 ` Fabien Salvi
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=20040421224843.GD643@tpkurt.garloff.de \
--to=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patmans@us.ibm.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