Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
Mike Christie wrote:
Dave C Boutcher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:09:32PM -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 13:10 -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
cleanup. In the end some of the scsi people liked the idea of
throwing the non-read/write command to userspace and to do this we
just decided to start over but I have been cutting and pasting
your code and cleaning it up as I add more stuff.
To be honest, I'd like to see all command processing at user level
(including read/write ... for block devices, it shouldn't be that
inefficient, since you're merely going to say remap an area from one
device to another; as long as no data transformation ever occurs, the
user never touches the data and it all remains in the kernel page
cache).
Ok, Tomo and I briefly talked about this when we saw Jeff's post
about doing block layer drivers in userspace on lkml. I think we
were somewhat prepared for this given some of your other replies.
So Vlad and other target guys what do you think? Vlad are you going
to continue to maintain scst as kernel only, or is there some place
we can work together on this on - if your feelings are not hurt too
much that is :) ?
Oofff....Architecturally I agree with James...do all command processing
in one place. On the other hand, the processing involved with a read or
write in the normal case (no aborts/resets/ordering/timeouts/etc) is
almost zero. Figure out the LBA and length and pass on the I/O. The
There is still memory and scatterlist allocations. If we are not going
to allocate all the memory for a command buffer and request with
GFP_ATOMIC (and can then run from the the HW interrupt or soft irq) we
have to pass that on to a thread. I guess there is disagreement
whether that part is a feature or bad use of GFP_ATOMIC though so...
But I just mean to say there could be a little more to do.
Actually, there is the way to allocate sg vectors with buffers in SIRQ
and not with GFP_ATOMIC. This is the second major improvement, which is
pending in scst. I called it sgv_pool. This is a new allocator in the
kernel similar to mem_pool, but it contains *complete* sg-vectors of
some size with data buffers (pages). Initiator sends data requests
usually with some fixed size, like 128K. After a data command completed,
its sg vector will not be immediately freed, but will be kept in
We considered this, but what did you decide is the upper limit size for
the pool? Is it dynmaic? We also wanted something that the SCSI ULDs
could use for their allocations which could go up to 6 MB.
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
