On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 11:00 -0800, Mike Anderson wrote:
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 14:00 -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
> > > Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > > > @@ -1445,9 +1479,24 @@ static void scsi_kill_request(struct req
> > > > static void scsi_softirq_done(struct request *rq)
> > > > {
> > > > struct scsi_cmnd *cmd = rq->completion_data;
> > > > - unsigned long wait_for = (cmd->allowed + 1) * cmd->timeout_per_command;
> > > > int disposition;
> > > > + struct request_queue *q;
> > > > + unsigned long wait_for, flags;
> > > >
> > > > + if (blk_linux_request(rq)) {
> > > > + q = rq->q;
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * we always return 1 and the caller should
> > > > + * check rq->errors for the complete status
> > > > + */
> > > > + end_that_request_last(rq, 1);
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > + wait_for = (cmd->allowed + 1) * cmd->timeout_per_command;
> > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cmd->eh_entry);
> > > >
> > > .....
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * Function: scsi_request_fn()
> > > > *
> > > > @@ -1519,7 +1612,23 @@ static void scsi_request_fn(struct reque
> > > > * accept it.
> > > > */
> > > > req = elv_next_request(q);
> > > > - if (!req || !scsi_dev_queue_ready(q, sdev))
> > > > + if (!req)
> > > > + break;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We do not account for linux blk req in the device
> > > > + * or host busy accounting because it is not necessarily
> > > > + * a scsi command that is sent to some object. The lower
> > > > + * level can translate it into a request/scsi_cmnd, if
> > > > + * necessary, and then queue that up using REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (blk_linux_request(req)) {
> > > > + blkdev_dequeue_request(req);
> > > > + scsi_execute_blk_linux_cmd(req);
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!scsi_dev_queue_ready(q, sdev))
> > > > break;
> > >
> > > I think these two pieces are one of the reasons I have not pushed the
> > > patches. I thought the completion and execution pieces here are a little
> > > ugly and seem to just wedge themselves in where they want to be.
> > >
> > > Is there any way to make the insertion of non-scsi commands more common?
> > > Do we have the code for being able to send requests directly to
> > > something like a fc rport done? Could we maybe inject these special
> > > commands to the hw handler using something similar to how bsg would send
> > > non scsi commands to weird objects (objects like rport, sessions, and
> > > not devices we traditionally associated with queues like scsi_devices).
> > > Just a thought with no code :) that is why the ugly code existed still :)
> >
> > We sort of do. The bsg code in scsi_transport_sas to send SMP frames to
> > expander devices would be an example of non-scsi commands going via a
> > mechanism other than being encapsulated in SCSI. I don't know if that's
> > the complete solution in this case, but you could investigate it.
>
> I looked at the bsg code in scsi_transport_sas and all I see it doing is
> calling blk_init_queue to set the request_fn. The request_fn
> (*smp_request) just processes one cmd_type. Is there code is another tree
> that has more processing?
No ... that's it. It's designed to expose a frame driven SMP
communication channel to expanders via a block tap.
Part of the problem seems to be that your current code is very much
trying to do this in-band. A block tap like the SMP handlers are
effectively out of band
> A idea to allow for more control / flexibility cmd_type handlers could be
> added inside request_fn, prep_rq_fn, softirq_done_fn.
>
> I thought about this being at a higher level in the block layer, but it
> would be hard to handle the request_fn cleanly at the high level. The
> localized change would reduce impact on users who do not want or need per
> cmd_type handlers.
But this type of thinking does lead to a lot of apparent nastiness
inside your actual handlers. Trying to do all of this in-band has you
doing a lot of callback driven async I/O stuff using
blk_execute_rq_nowait(). It might be a lot cleaner to do it out of band
on a thread using the standard waiting interfaces.
James
-
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
