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/
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
