lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg
    James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com wrote on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55 -0600:
    > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
    > > fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
    > > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
    > > > Pete Wyckoff <pw@osc.edu> wrote:
    > > > > I took another look at the compat approach, to see if it is feasible
    > > > > to keep the compat handling somewhere else, without the use of #ifdef
    > > > > CONFIG_COMPAT and size-comparison code inside bsg.c. I don't see how.
    > > > > The use of iovec is within a write operation on a char device. It's
    > > > > not amenable to a compat_sys_ or a .compat_ioctl approach.
    > > > >
    > > > > I'm partial to #1 because the use of architecture-independent fields
    > > > > matches the rest of struct sg_io_v4. But if you don't want to have
    > > > > another iovec type in the kernel, could we do #2 but just return
    > > > > -EINVAL if the need for compat is detected? I.e. change
    > > > > dout_iovec_count to dout_iovec_length and do the math?
    > > >
    > > > If you are ok with removing the write/read interface and just have
    > > > ioctl, we could can handle comapt stuff like others do. But I think
    > > > that you (OSD people) really want to keep the write/read
    > > > interface. Sorry, I think that there is no workaround to support iovec
    > > > in bsg.
    > >
    > > I don't care about read/write in particular. But we do need some
    > > way to launch asynchronous SCSI commands, and currently read/write
    > > are the only way to do that in bsg. The reason is to keep multiple
    > > spindles busy at the same time.
    >
    > Won't multi-threading the ioctl calls achieve the same effect? Or do
    > you trip over BKL there?

    There's no BKL on (new) ioctls anymore, at least. A thread per
    device would be feasible perhaps. But if you want any sort of
    pipelining out of the device, esp. in the remote iSCSI case, you
    need to have a good number of commands outstanding to each device.
    So a thread per command per device. Typical iSCSI queue depth of
    128 times 16 devices for a small setup is a lot of threads.

    The pthread/pipe latency overhead is not insignificant for fast
    storage networks too.

    > > How about these new ioctls instead of read/write:
    > >
    > > SG_IO_SUBMIT - start a new blk_execute_rq_nowait()
    > > SG_IO_TEST - complete and return a previous req
    > > SG_IO_WAIT - wait for a req to finish, interruptibly
    > >
    > > Then old write users will instead do ioctl SUBMIT. Read users will
    > > do TEST for non-blocking fd, or WAIT for blocking. And SG_IO could
    > > be implemented as SUBMIT + WAIT.
    > >
    > > Then we can do compat_ioctl and convert up iovecs out-of-line before
    > > calling the normal functions.
    > >
    > > Let me know if you want a patch for this.
    >
    > Really, the thought of re-inventing yet another async I/O interface
    > isn't very appealing.

    I'm fine with read/write, except Tomo is against handling iovecs
    because of the compat complexity with struct iovec being different
    on 32- vs 64-bit. There is a standard way to do "compat" ioctl that
    hides this handling in a different file (not bsg.c), which is the
    only reason I'm even considering these ioctls. I don't care about
    compat setups per se.

    Is there another async I/O mechanism? Userspace builds the CDBs,
    just needs some way to drop them in SCSI ML. BSG is almost perfect
    for this, but doesn't do iovec, leading to lots of memcpy.

    -- Pete


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-10 22:49    [W:0.025 / U:91.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site