linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>
To: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
Cc: Christof Schmitt <christof.schmitt@de.ibm.com>,
	"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Vasquez <linux-driver@qlogic.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] scsi error: have scsi-ml call	change_queue_depth to handle QUEUE_FULL
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:16:15 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A379B1F.2070708@emulex.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A368639.20701@cs.wisc.edu>



Mike Christie wrote:
>> This was called because of a "queue full" for one SCSI device. Why do
>> you decrement the queue depth for all SCSI devices on the same host
>> and not only for one device?
>>     
>
> It should actually do it for only the devices on the same target where 
> the problem occurred. I copied the code from lpfc and qla2xxx and cannot 
> remember the reason why this is done now.  I am ccing AndrewV and JamesS.
>
>   

Agree that it should be localized to the target and not propagated to 
all targets.   Our design issue was choosing how to apply the backoff - 
did a queue full on a single lun imply the entire target is full ?  
Thus, should we reduce all luns at that point, or only the lun that saw 
the queue full.   All depends on how fast you want to ramp down the 
overall situation and how biased things get on multiple luns..  And the 
same decision on the ramp up - to we raise everyone, or let the luns 
function independently.  Raising everyone too quickly recauses the 
issue, and why would one hot lun steal capacity/queuing depth for a slow 
lun ?  There's a lot of assumptions being made in this choice on what is 
the gating resource (the io capacity of the target being equally shared 
by all luns).

-- james s



      reply	other threads:[~2009-06-16 13:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-19  5:52 RFC: handle queue_depth adjustments because of QUEUE_FULLs in scsi_error.c michaelc
2009-05-19  5:52 ` michaelc
2009-05-19  5:52   ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] scsi-ml: modify change_queue_depth to take in reason why it is being called michaelc
2009-05-19  5:52     ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] scsi error: have scsi-ml call change_queue_depth to handle QUEUE_FULL michaelc
2009-05-19  5:52       ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] drivers: convert drivers setting the change_queue_depth callback michaelc
2009-05-19  5:52         ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] drivers: convert fc drivers calling scsi_track_queue_full michaelc
2009-06-12 12:57           ` Christof Schmitt
2009-06-12 12:48       ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] scsi error: have scsi-ml call change_queue_depth to handle QUEUE_FULL Christof Schmitt
2009-06-15 17:34         ` Mike Christie
2009-06-16 13:16           ` James Smart [this message]

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=4A379B1F.2070708@emulex.com \
    --to=james.smart@emulex.com \
    --cc=christof.schmitt@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-driver@qlogic.com \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).