lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] Power management for SCSI
Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
>>> More to the point is whether you should ever suspend any of these
>>> devices if there can be multiple initiators. But that's a separate
>>> question.
>> But one that needs to be addressed.
>
> One possibility is to have an attribute flag for SCSI transport
> classes, indicating whether the transport supports multiple initiators.
>
> Besides, isn't this already an issue? What happens when someone does a
> system suspend or hibernate? Don't the attached disk drives get spun
> down, even if there are other initiators on the same SCSI bus?

In (fw-)sbp2, we have for example this simple code:

static int sbp2_scsi_slave_configure(struct scsi_device *sdev)
{
...
if (sbp2_param_exclusive_login)
sdev->manage_start_stop = 1;
...
By setting the exclusive_login module parameter from Y (default) to N,
multiple initiators per logical unit become possible. We are too lazy
to check whether there are actually other initiators at a given moment;
after all they can come and go all the time. So the simplest strategy
is to suppress managed START STOP when concurrent initiators are _possible_.

I suppose though that all multiple initiator capable transports have
ways to query the presence of other initiators at any given time; but I
don't think the respective effort is justified.

> (And is this really a problem? If an error occurs because a drive is
> spun down when some other device tries to access it, that other device
> should simply spin the drive back up again.)

The high latency may be a problem.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- =--- =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-20 01:27    [W:0.081 / U:1.008 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site