On 05/13/2009 05:47 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:36 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> On 05/13/2009 05:28 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>> On 05/12/2009 02:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 07 2009, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>>>> Osd library needs to submit pre-allocated bios, form several sources. >>>>> osdblk exofs and pNFS-layout driver all have prepared bios for IO submission. >>>>> On top of that the osd library needs to append additional segments to the >>>>> IO memory, for get/set attributes and more. >>>>> >>>>> All these are done today by use of a temporary hack - blk_rq_append_bio. >>>>> This is bad on few accounts. >>>>> 1. blk_rq_append_bio was not meant to be exported and is very specific to its users. >>>>> 2. blk_rq_append_bio does not support chained bios. >>>>> 3. blk_rq_append_bio does not bounce the bio and therefore current osd implementation >>>>> has a bug. >>>>> >>>>> The proposed solution adds two new fixtures to the block layer, and a corresponding >>>>> fixing patch to osd. These are: >>>>> >>>>> [PATCH 1/4] allow blk_rq_map_kern to append to requests >>>>> [PATCH 2/4] libosd: Use new blk_rq_map_kern >>>>> >>>>> This is originally a James patch and it's used, to let blk_rq_map_kern append it's buffer >>>>> to existing bio, and there for is able to be called multiple times in a loop, to append >>>>> multiple segments. This API can also be useful for scsi/block targets that have segment >>>>> information in some other memory structure (like scatterlist) and wants to set it into >>>>> a request. Until such time that they have a proper support for mapping scatterlists directly. >>>>> (Since above called on long lists might not be good for performance) >>>>> >>>>> Here in osd it makes tons of sense, and should be considered for inclusion. >>>>> (The patches are based on linus-tip but should patch on block tree) >>>>> >>>>> [RFC 3/4] New blk_make_request(), takes bio, returns a request >>>>> [RFC 4/4] libosd: Use of new blk_make_request >>>>> >>>>> Here I propose a new block API, that will support proper delegation of a bio >>>>> to a full request. Please read inside the patch descriptions for details. >>>>> After this patch both osd and block layer will have the proper support for osdblk >>>>> driver as well as future needs. >>>>> These patches also eliminate the last use of blk_rq_append_bio which can be now un-exported. >>>>> >>>>> These two patches conflic with Tejun's branch and are based on linus-tip. Upon positive review >>>>> I will serialize them with Tejun and submit them properly. But first they must be agreed upon. >>>>> Jens, I specially need your opinion on this? >>>> Looks sane to me. Can you resubmit against 'for-2.6.31' of the block git >>>> repo? >>>> >>> Thanks Jens. >>> >>> I have done the rebase and ran some tests, however I was unable to test these patches >>> as is, because there are some inter tree fallouts. >>> >>> Jens, James, Stephan, I please need your help >>> >>> The situation is like that. >>> - Both block/for-next and scsi/master are based on an old osd upstream-point (v2.6.30-rc3--ce8a7424) >>> - Linus tip has important OSD patches that went in via scsi-rc-fixes which changed Wire format > > So just pull them into Linus head and build on that ... as long as you > explain what the base was, I can rebase scsi-misc (or run a post merge > tree) to cope. It needs rebasing anyway to redo the mvsas patches. > >>> - If I try and merge block/for-next ontop of plain linus/master I get a merge conflict >>> - If I try merge scsi/master block/for-next I get build errors / conflicts > > This is the problem of the renames ... I think we need a block postmerge > tree to fix this up, but that probably needs sorting out first. > >>> So there is no sane tree point that I can test on. >>> >>> It would be nice if both Jens block/for-next and scsi-misc/master could be rebased on Linus rc5++ >>> and resolve these conflicts. (And scsi-misc conflicts with Tejun's cleanups be put in a second stage >>> tree) >>> >>> Should I send the patches as is half tested? Or wait for things to settle after I tested them >>> with all changes included? >>> >>> I have cut a new osd/linux-next branch which is based, not on linus, but on v2.6.30-rc3--ce8a7424 >>> the base point for block/for-next and scsi-misc/master. So in next it should all come together >>> well, and I will try to clone tomorrow's next and test on top of that. >>> >> This will not work I have one patch [3/4] New blk_make_request(), takes bio, returns a request >> which will conflict with block/for-next if I rebase it on v2.6.30-rc3--ce8a7424. >> >> Should I cut osd/linux-next on top of block/for-next ? > > What you really want is on the combination of the necessary trees. If > it's only block, then sure ... if it's block and SCSI, that's postmerge > territory. > > James > > Thank you for your reply. I did more-less what you said rebased block/for-next on linus-tip and fixed the merge with scsi-misc as per Stephan advise. Plus my patches last. Test ran well. I see that you rebased by now, though I suspect the fc's blk_end_request call will fail to build if merged with block tree. I'm also seeing some recent changes to block git so I suspect that Jens is in the middle of rebasing too. (I hope) As far as OSD, I managed to separate the two block-based changes to osd from the rest of the changes scheduled for 2.6.31 in such a way that they do not conflict and can merge either way (block first or scsi-misc first). I'll repost all these patches. Sunday hopfuly after Jens rebases. Thanks Boaz -- 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
