From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
To: James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com
Cc: k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dm-devel@redhat.com, j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: export busy state via q->lld_busy_fn()
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:06:23 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081003.160623.48532879.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1223057696.3230.38.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Hi James,
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:14:56 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:50 -0400, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > I hope the previous RFC patch(*) would be no problem, since I haven't
> > gotten any negative comment.
> > (*) http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/25/262
> >
> > So could you take this patch for 2.6.28 additionally?
> > This patch implements a new interface of the block layer for
> > request stacking drivers.
> > There should be no effect on existing drivers' behavior.
> >
> > This patch was created on top of the commit below of scsi-post-merge-2.6.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > commit e49f03f37104c0e7cae7c455480069bada00932f
> > Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> > Date: Fri Sep 12 16:46:51 2008 -0500
> >
> > [SCSI] scsi_error: fix target reset handling
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > And this patch depends on the following block layer patch, which
> > is in Jens' for-2.6.28 of linux-2.6-block.
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/29/142
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kiyoshi Ueda
> >
> >
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: export busy state via q->lld_busy_fn()
> >
> > This patch implements q->lld_busy_fn() for scsi mid layer to export
> > its busy state.
> >
> > Please note that it checks the cached information (sdev->lld_busy)
> > for efficiency, instead of checking the actual state of
> > sdev/starget/shost everytime.
> >
> > So the care must be taken not to leave sdev->lld_busy = 1 for
> > the following cases:
> > - when there is no request in the sdev queue
> > - when scsi can't dispatch I/Os anymore and needs to kill I/Os
> > Otherwise, request stacking drivers may not submit any request,
> > and then, nobody sets back lld_busy = 0 and that causes deadlock.
> >
> > OTOH, it has no major problem in setting sdev->lld_busy = 0 even when
> > the starget/shost is actually busy, because newly submitted request
> > will soon turn it to 1 in scsi_request_fn().
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
> > Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/scsi.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > include/scsi/scsi_device.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: scsi-post-merge-2.6/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- scsi-post-merge-2.6.orig/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > +++ scsi-post-merge-2.6/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > @@ -480,6 +480,8 @@ void scsi_device_unbusy(struct scsi_devi
> > spin_unlock(shost->host_lock);
> > spin_lock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
> > sdev->device_busy--;
> > + if (sdev->device_busy < sdev->queue_depth && !sdev->device_blocked)
> > + sdev->lld_busy = 0;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1535,6 +1537,13 @@ static void scsi_softirq_done(struct req
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static int scsi_lld_busy(struct request_queue *q)
> > +{
> > + struct scsi_device *sdev = q->queuedata;
> > +
> > + return sdev ? sdev->lld_busy : 0;
> > +}
>
> Since you've moved to a functional approach, why is this lld_busy flag
> still necessary? Surely this function can just check the three blocked
> conditions and the two overqueue ones at this point without ever having
> to reach into any of the SCSI internals?
This flag is not necessary for the functionality, it's for efficiency.
I could take the "everytime checking" approach above, but I think
caching the busy state into the flag is more efficient, since:
- The check function will be called from request stacking drivers
frequently (e.g. request-based dm calls it everytime before
an request is dispatched from the dm device.)
- The scsi busy state checking needs queue lock and host lock
even while the scsi busy state doesn't changed from the previous
checking.
Actually, I don't get any performance problem by some simple testings
of the "everytime checking" approach.
Do you prefer the "everytime checking" approach to simplify the patch?
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-03 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-01 18:50 [PATCH 1/1] scsi: export busy state via q->lld_busy_fn() Kiyoshi Ueda
2008-10-03 18:14 ` James Bottomley
2008-10-03 20:06 ` Kiyoshi Ueda [this message]
2008-10-03 21:51 ` [dm-devel] " James Bottomley
2008-10-04 18:14 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
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=20081003.160623.48532879.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
--to=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
/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