lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] SCSI io_request_lock patch
    On Tue, Nov 13 2001, Jonathan Lahr wrote:
    > Jens Axboe [axboe@suse.de] wrote:
    > > On Mon, Nov 12 2001, Jonathan Lahr wrote:
    > > >
    > > > This is a request for comments on the patch described below which
    > > > implements a revised approach to reducing io_request_lock
    > > > contention in 2.4.
    > > >
    > > > This new version of the io_request_lock patch (siorl-v0) is
    > > > available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/lse/. It employs the
    > > > same concurrent request queueing scheme as the iorlv0 patch but
    > > > isolates code changes to the SCSI subsystem and engages the new
    > > > locking scheme only for SCSI drivers which explicitly request it.
    > > > I took this more restricted approach after additional development
    > > > based on comments from Jens and others indicated that iorlv0
    > > > impacted the IDE subsystem and was unnecessarily broad in general.
    > > >
    > > > The siorl-v0 patch allows drivers to enable concurrent queueing
    > > > through the concurrent_queue field in the Scsi_Host_Template which
    > > > is copied to the request queue. It creates SCSI-specific versions
    > > > of generic block i/o functions used by the SCSI subsystem and
    > > > modifies them to conditionally engage the new locking scheme based
    > > > on this field. It allows control over which drivers use
    > > > concurrent queueing and preserves original block i/o behavior by
    > > > default.
    > >
    > > Sorry Jonathan, but this is even more broken than the last patch. In
    > > different ways. In no particular order:
    > >
    > > o You are duplicating way too much code and exporting block
    > > internals
    >
    > The duplication is a reasonable starting point for SCSI-specific
    > functions. The block i/o design provides for exactly this type of
    > tailoring through function pointers installed in request_queue.

    Yes I know, I wrote most of said code :-)

    > What problem you do see with exporting block internals?

    It's absolutely worthless. Look, it ties in with the points I made
    below. You are exporting the merge functions for instance, and setting
    them in the queue. This will cause scsi_merge not to use it's own
    functions, broken.

    The make_request_fn addition could be ok, just needs to be cleaned a
    bit.

    > > o You are breaking SCSI merge completely, why on earth are you
    > > suddenly using ll_*_merge functions for SCSI?! o scsi_make_request
    > > need not worry about head active o scsi_make_request can safe the
    > > q->*_merge indirect o scsi_dispatch_cmd() io_request_lock removal
    > > looks racy
    >
    > I will investigate the above comments further.
    >
    > > At least you are not breaking anything other than SCSI this time...
    >
    > Do you think the separation of SCSI from generic block i/o code and
    > the driver-activated control of concurrent queueing provides a path
    > for future work to reduce io_request_lock contention in SCSI/FC?

    Not really, but I do think it could be a viable 2.4 alternative. For 2.5
    we still want to do this the right way.

    --
    Jens Axboe

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.024 / U:92.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site