On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:52:06PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> async_schedule() sd resume work to allow disks and other devices to
> resume in parallel.
>
> This moves the entirety of scsi_device resume to an async context to
> ensure that scsi_device_resume() remains ordered with respect to the
> completion of the start/stop command. For the duration of the resume,
> new command submissions (that do not originate from the scsi-core) will
> be deferred (BLKPREP_DEFER).
>
> It adds a new ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE(scsi_sd_pm_domain) as a container
> of these operations. Like scsi_sd_probe_domain it is flushed at
> sd_remove() time to ensure async ops do not continue past the
> end-of-life of the sdev. The implementation explicitly refrains from
> reusing scsi_sd_probe_domain directly for this purpose as it is flushed
> at the end of dpm_resume(), potentially defeating some of the benefit.
> Given sdevs are quiesced it is permissible for these resume operations
> to bleed past the async_synchronize_full() calls made by the driver
> core.
>
> We defer the resolution of which pm callback to call until
> scsi_dev_type_{suspend|resume} time and guarantee that the callback
> parameter is never NULL. With this in place the type of resume
> operation is encoded in the async function identifier.
>
> Inspired by Todd's analysis and initial proposal [2]:
> https://01.org/suspendresume/blogs/tebrandt/2013/hard-disk-resume-optimization-simpler-approach
The only thing which is a bit concerning is that this doesn't have any
throttling mechanism for simultaneous wakeups. Would this be able to
blow up the PSU if used on a machine with a lot of spindles?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
