On 2/12/14 10:26 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 2/12/14 10:11 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 2/12/14 9:29 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 02/07/2014 02:54 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 02/06/2014 07:24 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 01/31/2014 03:29 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
We should be issuing STPG synchronously as we need to
evaluate the return code on failure.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
I think we need to also make dm-mpath.c use a non-ordered workqueue
for
kmpath_handlerd. With this patch and the current ordered workqueue in
dm-mpath I think we will only be able to do one STPG at a time. I
think
if we use a normal old non-ordered workqueue then we would be
limited to
have max_active STPGs executing.
I goofed and commented in the order I saw the patches :) I take this
comment back for this patch, because I see in 16/16 you added a new
workqueue to scsi_dh_alua to do rtpgs and stpgs.
For 16/16 though, do we want to make kmpath_aluad a non single threaded
workqueue? It looks like max_active for single threaded is only one
work
at a time too.
Well, that was by intention.
The workqueue will be triggered very infrequently (basically for
every path switch).
For implicit ALUA we just need to issue a RTPG to get the new path
status; there we might be suffering from single threaded behaviour.
But we need to issue it only once and it should be processed
reasonably fast.
For explicit ALUA we'll have to send an STPG, which has potentially
system-wide implications. So sending several to (supposedly)
different targets might actually be contraproductive, as the first
might have already set the status for the second call.
Here we most definitely _want_ serialisation to avoid superfluous STPGs.
What target is this?
For our target it adds a regression. It only affects devices on the same
port group. We then have multiple groups. Before the patch, we could
failover/failback multiple devices in parallel. To do 64 devices it took
about 3 seconds. With your patch it takes around 3 minutes.
Also, with your pg change patch, I think we can serialize based on group
and it will do what you want and also allow us to do STPGs to different
groups in parallel.
I guess that would work for me, but I think if you had the same target
port in multiple port groups then you could hit the issue you described,
right?
--
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
