On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30 2007, Benny Halevy wrote:
> >> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Apr 29 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 18:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >>>>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bidi support: bidirectional request
> >>>>>> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:33:28 +0300
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >>>>>>> index 645d24b..16a02ee 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >>>>>>> @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct request {
> >>>>>>> void *end_io_data;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> struct request_io_part uni;
> >>>>>>> + struct request_io_part bidi_read;
> >>>>>>> };
> >>>>>> Would be more straightforward to have:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> struct request_io_part in;
> >>>>>> struct request_io_part out;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Yes I wish I could do that. For bidi supporting drivers this is the most logical.
> >>>>> But for the 99.9% of uni-directional drivers, calling rq_uni(), and being some what on
> >>>>> the hotish paths, this means we will need a pointer to a uni request_io_part.
> >>>>> This is bad because:
> >>>>> 1st- There is no defined stage in a request life where to definitely set that pointer,
> >>>>> specially in the preparation stages.
> >>>>> 2nd- hacks like scsi_error.c/scsi_send_eh_cmnd() will not work at all. Now this is a
> >>>>> very bad spot already, and I have a short term fix for it in the SCSI-bidi patches
> >>>>> (not sent yet) but a more long term solution is needed. Once such hacks are
> >>>>> cleaned up we can do what you say. This is exactly why I use the access functions
> >>>>> rq_uni/rq_io/rq_in/rq_out and not open code access.
> >>>> I'm still not really convinced about this approach. The primary job of
> >>>> the block layer is to manage and merge READ and WRITE requests. It
> >>>> serves a beautiful secondary function of queueing for arbitrary requests
> >>>> it doesn't understand (REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC or REQ_TYPE_SPECIAL ... or
> >>>> indeed any non REQ_TYPE_FS).
> >>>>
> >>>> bidirectional requests fall into the latter category (there's nothing
> >>>> really we can do to merge them ... they're just transported by the block
> >>>> layer). The only unusual feature is that they carry two bios. I think
> >>>> the drivers that actually support bidirectional will be a rarity, so it
> >>>> might even be advisable to add it to the queue capability (refuse
> >>>> bidirectional requests at the top rather than perturbing all the drivers
> >>>> to process them).
> >>>>
> >>>> So, what about REQ_TYPE_BIDIRECTIONAL rather than REQ_BIDI? That will
> >>>> remove it from the standard path and put it on the special command type
> >>>> path where we can process it specially. Additionally, if you take this
> >>>> approach, you can probably simply chain the second bio through
> >>>> req->special as an additional request in the stream. The only thing
> >>>> that would then need modification would be the dequeue of the block
> >>>> driver (it would have to dequeue both requests and prepare them) and
> >>>> that needs to be done only for drivers handling bidirectional requests.
> >>> I agree, I'm really not crazy about shuffling the entire request setup
> >>> around just for something as exotic as bidirection commands. How about
> >>> just keeping it simple - have a second request linked off the first one
> >>> for the second data phase? So keep it completely seperate, not just
> >>> overload ->special for 2nd bio list.
> >>>
> >>> So basically just add a struct request pointer, so you can do rq =
> >>> rq->next_rq or something for the next data phase. I bet this would be a
> >>> LOT less invasive as well, and we can get by with a few helpers to
> >>> support it.
> >>>
> >>> And it should definitely be a request type.
> >>>
> >> I'm a bit confused since what you both suggest is very similar to what we've
> >> proposed back in October 2006 and the impression we got was that it will be
> >> better to support bidirectional block requests natively (yet to be honest,
> >> James, you wanted a linked request all along).
> >
> > It still has to be implemented natively at the block layer, just
> > differently like described above. So instead of messing all over the
> > block layer adding rq_uni() stuff, just add that struct request pointer
> > to the request structure for the 2nd data phase. You can relatively easy
> > then modify the block layer helpers to support mapping and setup of such
> > requests.
> >
> >> Before we go on that route again, how do you see the support for bidi
> >> at the scsi mid-layer done? Again, we prefer to support that officially
> >> using two struct scsi_cmnd_buff instances in struct scsi_cmnd and not as
> >> a one-off feature, using special-purpose state and logic (e.g. a linked
> >> struct scsi_cmd for the bidi_read sg list).
> >
> > The SCSI part is up to James, that can be done as either inside a single
> > scsi command, or as linked scsi commands as well. I don't care too much
> > about that bit, just the block layer parts :-). And the proposed block
> > layer design can be used both ways by the scsi layer.
>
> Linked SCSI commands have been obsolete since SPC-4 rev 6
> (18 July 2006) after proposal 06-259r1 was accepted. That
> proposal starts: "The reasons for linked commands have been
> overtaken by time and events." I haven't see anyone mourning
> their demise on the t10 reflector.
This has nothing to do with linked commands as defined in the SCSI spec.
> Mapping two requests to one bidi SCSI command might make error
> handling more of a challenge.
Then go the other way, a command for each. Not a big deal.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
