Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] add io_uring with IOPOLL support in scsi layer

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 30/11/2020 07:41, Kashyap Desai wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c index
72b12102f777..5a3c383a2bb3 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
@@ -1766,6 +1766,19 @@ static void scsi_mq_exit_request(struct
blk_mq_tag_set *set, struct request *rq,
   			       cmd->sense_buffer);
   }

+
+static int scsi_mq_poll(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) {
+	struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
+	struct scsi_device *sdev = q->queuedata;
+	struct Scsi_Host *shost = sdev->host;
could we separately set hctx->driver_data = shost or similar for a quicker
lookup? I don't see hctx->driver_data set for SCSI currently.
Going through the scsi_device looks strange - I know that it is done in
scsi_commit_rqs.
John - I have included your comments. Below is add-on patch which handles
all your comment except one.
Below is just compiled (not tested patch). Please let me know if you like to
handle "scsi_init_hctx" in this patch or shall we do it as a separate patch
(out of this patch series.) ?

It might be better as a separate patch if you also change scsi_commit_rqs() to use hctx->driver_data, which you are currently not doing (or showing here).



--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
@@ -1769,9 +1769,7 @@ static void scsi_mq_exit_request(struct blk_mq_tag_set
*set, struct request *rq,

  static int scsi_mq_poll(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
  {
-       struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
-       struct scsi_device *sdev = q->queuedata;
-       struct Scsi_Host *shost = sdev->host;
+       struct Scsi_Host *shost = hctx->driver_data;

         if (shost->hostt->mq_poll)
                 return shost->hostt->mq_poll(shost, hctx->queue_num);
@@ -1779,6 +1777,14 @@ static int scsi_mq_poll(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
         return 0;
  }

+static int scsi_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data,
+                         unsigned int hctx_idx)
+{
+       struct Scsi_Host *shost = data;
+       hctx->driver_data = shost;
+       return 0;
+}
+
  static int scsi_map_queues(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set)
  {
         struct Scsi_Host *shost = container_of(set, struct Scsi_Host,
tag_set);
@@ -1846,6 +1852,7 @@ static const struct blk_mq_ops scsi_mq_ops_no_commit =
{
         .cleanup_rq     = scsi_cleanup_rq,
         .busy           = scsi_mq_lld_busy,
         .map_queues     = scsi_map_queues,
+       .init_hctx      = scsi_init_hctx,
         .poll           = scsi_mq_poll,
  };

@@ -1875,6 +1882,7 @@ static const struct blk_mq_ops scsi_mq_ops = {
         .cleanup_rq     = scsi_cleanup_rq,
         .busy           = scsi_mq_lld_busy,
         .map_queues     = scsi_map_queues,
+       .init_hctx      = scsi_init_hctx,
         .poll           = scsi_mq_poll,
  };

diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h b/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
index 5844374a85b1..cc30df96f5f7 100644
--- a/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
+++ b/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@
  #include <linux/types.h>
  #include <linux/timer.h>
  #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
-#include <scsi/scsi_host.h>
  #include <scsi/scsi_device.h>
+#include <scsi/scsi_host.h>
  #include <scsi/scsi_request.h>

  struct Scsi_Host;
diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_host.h b/include/scsi/scsi_host.h
index 905ee6b00c55..a0cda0f66b84 100644
--- a/include/scsi/scsi_host.h
+++ b/include/scsi/scsi_host.h
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ struct scsi_host_template {
          * SCSI interface of blk_poll - poll for IO completions.
          * Possible interface only if scsi LLD expose multiple h/w queues.
          *
-        * Return values: Number of completed entries found.
+        * Return value: Number of completed entries found.
          *
          * Status: OPTIONAL
          */

+
+	if (shost->hostt->mq_poll)
to avoid this check, could we reject if .mq_poll is not set and
HCTX_TYPE_POLL is?
Is this urgent or shall we improve later ? I am not able to figure out how
you want to manage this ? Can you explain little bit ?

I don't think that it will make much overhead difference, so ok to omit for now if more trouble than it's worth to implement.

Thanks,
John



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux