James Smart wrote: > Note: We've transitioned off topic. If what this means is "there isn't a > good > way except by ioctls (which still isn't easily portable) or system calls", > then that's ok. Then at least we know the limits and can look at other > implementation alternatives. > > Mike Christie wrote: >> James Smart wrote: >>> Mike Christie wrote: >>>> For the tasks you want to do for the fc class is performance critical? >>> No, it should not be. >>> >>>> If not, you could do what the iscsi class (for the netdev people >>>> this is >>>> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c) does and just suffer a couple >>>> copies. For iscsi we do this in userspace to send down a login pdu: >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * xmitbuf is a buffer that is large enough for the iscsi_event, >>>> * iscsi pdu (hdr_size) and iscsi pdu data (data_size) >>>> */ >>> Well, the real difference is that the payload of the "message" is >>> actually >>> the payload of the SCSI command or ELS/CT Request. Thus, the payload may >> >> I am not sure I follow. For iscsi, everything after the iscsi_event >> struct can be the iscsi request that is to be transmitted. The payload >> will not normally be Mbytes but it is not a couple if bytes. > > True... For a large read/write - it will eventually total what the i/o > request size was, and you did have to push it through the socekt. > What this discussion really comes down to is the difference between > initiator > offload and what a target does. > > The initiator offloads the "full" i/o from the users - e.g. send command, > get response. In the initiator case, the user isn't aware of each and > every IU that makes up the i/o. As it's on an i/o basis, the LLDD doing > the offload needs the full buffer sitting and ready. DMA is preferred so > the buffer doesn't have to be consuming socket/kernel/driver buffers while > it's pending - plus speed. > > In the target case, the target controls each IU and it's size, thus it > only has to have access to as much buffer space as it wants to push the > next > IU. The i/o can be "paced" by the target. Unfortunately, this is an > entirely > different use model than users of a scsi initiator expect, and it won't map > well into replacing things like our sg_io ioctls. I am not talking about the target here. For the open-iscsi initiator that is in mainline that I referecnced in the example we send pdus from userpsace to the LLD. In the future, initaitors that offload some iscsi processing and will login from userspace or have userspace monitor the transport by doing iscsi pings, we need to be able to send these pdus. And the iscsi pdu cannot be broken up at the iscsi level (they can at the interconect level though). From the iscsi host level they have to go out like a scsi command would in that the LLD cannot decide to send out mutiple pdus for he pdu that userspace sends down. I do agree with you that targets can break down a scsi command into multiple transport level packets as it sees fit. > >> Instead of netlink for scsi commands and transport requests.... >> >> For scsi commands could we just use sg io, or is there something special >> about the command you want to send? If you can use sg io for scsi >> commands, maybe for transport level requests (in my example iscsi pdu) >> we could modify something like sg/bsg/block layer scsi_ioctl.c to send >> down transport requests to the classes and encapsulate them in some new >> struct transport_requests or use the existing struct request but do that >> thing people keep taling about using the request/request_queue for >> message passing. > > Well - there's 2 parts to this answer: > > First : IOCTL's are considered dangerous/bad practice and therefore it > would Yeah, i am not trying to kill ioctls. I go where the community goes. What I am trying to dois just reuse the sg io mapping code so that we do not end up with sg, st, target, blk scsi_ioctl.c and bsg all doing similar things. > be nice to find a replacement mechanism that eliminates them. If that > mechanism has some of the cool features that netlink does, even better. > Using sg io, in the manner you indicate, wouldn't remove the ioctl use. > Note: I have OEMs/users that are very confused about the community's > statement > about ioctls. They've heard they are bad, should never be allowed, > will no > be longer supported, but yet they are at the heart of DM and sg io and > other > subsystems. Other than a "grandfathered" explanation, they don't > understand > why the rules bend for one piece of code but not for another. To them, > all > the features are just as critical regardless of whose providing them. > > Second: transport level i/o could be done like you suggest, and we've > prototyped some of this as well. However, there's something very wrong > about putting "block device" wrappers and settings around something that > is not a block device. In general, it's a heck of a lot of overhead and > still doesn't solve the real issue - how to portably pass that user > buffer I am not talking about putting block device wrappers. This the magic part and the message passing comes in. A while back I made the requuest queue a class (only sent the patch to Jens and did not follow up). The original reason was for the io sched swap and some multipath stuff, but since with then the request queue would need a block device to be exposed to userspace through sysfs and would not need a block device to send messages throgh. You just need a way to commniutate between userspace and the kernel but it does not have to be through a block device. I think this path has other benefits in that you could do userspace level scanning as well since you do not need the block device and ULD like we do today. > in to/out of the kernel. > > > -- james s - : 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
