On Mon, Jun 11 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 08:41 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 11:16 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > > Lguest doesn't have a framebuffer, so maybe this is a good thing for me
> > > > > to hack on, but I promised myself I'd finish NAPI for the net device,
> > > > > and tag for block device first.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you're touching the block device, passing a request's io priority to
> > > > the host can be useful.
> > >
> > > OK, here's the interdiff. I still don't handle non-fs requests, but I
> > > haven't seen any yet. I should probably BUG_ON() there and wait for
> > > Jens to scream...
> >
> > Ehm no, that would certainly cause screaming :-)
> >
> > Checking for blk_fs_request() and terminating the request if you don't
> > know how to handle it is the correct thing to do, a BUG() would
> > definitely not be.
>
> So the problem is that I'd like to handle all of them, but I'm not clear
> what requests my device can get. I can't see a source of any other type
> of request.
The other main request type is blk_pc_request(). In the data setup it's
indentical to blk_fs_request(), there's a bio chain off ->bio. It's a
byte granularity entity though, so you should check ->data_len for the
size of it. ->cmd[] holds a SCSI cdb, which is the command you are
supposed to handle.
> > > + blk_queue_prep_rq(vblk->disk->queue, blk_queue_start_tag);
> > > +
> >
> > is quite a novel way, I actually had to look that code up to check
> > whether it was correct. I'd much prefer a little wrapper around that,
>
> OK, but I got it from the blk_queue_start_tag documentation:
>
> * Description:
> * This can either be used as a stand-alone helper, or possibly be
> * assigned as the queue &prep_rq_fn (in which case &struct request
> * automagically gets a tag assigned). Note that this function
> * assumes that any type of request can be queued!
OK, bad documentation, I'll make a note to fix that! Sorry about that.
> I'm unsure on the whole ordered tag idea, though. It seems like there
> are never be multiple requests in the queue with the same tag, so it
> effectively forces my (userspace) virtio server to serialize and
> fdatasync on every write request:
>
> if (outhdr->type && outhdr->tag != vblk->last_tag) {
> while (vblk->in_progress)
> handle_io_finish(fd, dev);
> fdatasync(fd);
> vblk->last_tag = outhdr->tag;
> }
>
>
> In fact, AFAICT any implementation of ordered tags will be forced into
> serial order. Am I better off telling the block layer to drain and
> flush instead of ordered tags? I can then push that through to the
> virtio server.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what the tag is? The tag is a unique
identifier for a pending request, so you will by definition never have
requests sharing a tag value. But the tag is not to be considered as
ordered, unless it has the barrier flag set as well. So you only need to
serialize on the device side when blk_barrier_rq() is true.
--
Jens Axboe
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
