From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: <axboe@kernel.dk>, <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
<martin.petersen@oracle.com>, <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
<bvanassche@acm.org>, <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
<esc.storagedev@microsemi.com>, <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/24] scsi: allocate separate queue for reserved commands
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:35:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20ebe296-9e57-b3e3-21b3-63a09ce86036@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <39bc2d82-2676-e329-5d32-8acb99b0a204@suse.de>
On 07/04/2020 15:00, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 4/7/20 1:54 PM, John Garry wrote:
>> On 06/04/2020 10:05, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> On 3/11/20 7:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 09:08:56PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2020 18:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:25:28AM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allocate a separate 'reserved_cmd_q' for sending reserved commands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? Reserved command specifically are not in any way tied to
>>>>>> queues.
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So the v1 series used a combination of the sdev queue and the per-host
>>>>> reserved_cmd_q. Back then you questioned using the sdev queue for
>>>>> virtio
>>>>> scsi, and the unconfirmed conclusion was to use a common per-host
>>>>> q. This is
>>>>> the best link I can find now:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org/msg83177.html
>>>>
>>>> That was just a question on why virtio uses the per-device tags, which
>>>> didn't look like it made any sense. What I'm worried about here is
>>>> mixing up the concept of reserved tags in the tagset, and queues to use
>>>> them. Note that we already have the scsi_get_host_dev to allocate
>>>> a scsi_device and thus a request_queue for the host itself. That seems
>>>> like the better interface to use a tag for a host wide command vs
>>>> introducing a parallel path.
>>>>
>>> Thinking about it some more, I don't think that scsi_get_host_dev() is
>>> the best way of handling it.
>>> Problem is that it'll create a new scsi_device with <hostno:this_id:0>,
>>> which will then show up via eg 'lsscsi'.
>>
>> are you sure? Doesn't this function just allocate the sdev, but do
>> nothing with it, like probing it?
>>
>> I bludgeoned it in here for PoC:
>>
>> https://github.com/hisilicon/kernel-dev/commit/ef0ae8540811e32776f64a5b42bd76cbed17ba47
>>
>>
>> And then still:
>>
>> john@ubuntu:~$ lsscsi
>> [0:0:0:0] disk SEAGATE ST2000NM0045 N004 /dev/sda
>> [0:0:1:0] disk SEAGATE ST2000NM0045 N004 /dev/sdb
>> [0:0:2:0] disk ATASAMSUNG HM320JI 0_01 /dev/sdc
>> [0:0:3:0] disk SEAGATE ST1000NM0023 0006 /dev/sdd
>> [0:0:4:0] enclosu HUAWEIExpander 12Gx16 128-
>> john@ubuntu:~$
>>
>> Some proper plumbing would be needed, though.
>>
>>> This would be okay if 'this_id' would have been defined by the driver;
>>> sadly, most drivers which are affected here do set 'this_id' to -1.
>>> So we wouldn't have a nice target ID to allocate the device from, let
>>> alone the problem that we would have to emulate a complete scsi device
>>> with all required minimal command support etc.
>>> And I'm not quite sure how well that would play with the exising SCSI
>>> host template; the device we'll be allocating would have basically
>>> nothing in common with the 'normal' SCSI devices.
>>>
>>> What we could do, though, is to try it the other way round:
>>> Lift the request queue from scsi_get_host_dev() into the scsi host
>>> itself, so that scsi_get_host_dev() can use that queue, but we also
>>> would be able to use it without a SCSI device attached.
>>
>> wouldn't that limit 1x scsi device per host, not that I know if any
>> more would ever be required? But it does still seem better to use the
>> request queue in the scsi device.
>>
> My concern is this:
>
> struct scsi_device *scsi_get_host_dev(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
> {
> [ .. ]
> starget = scsi_alloc_target(&shost->shost_gendev, 0, shost->this_id);
> [ .. ]
>
> and we have typically:
>
> drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_v3_hw.c: .this_id = -1,
>
> It's _very_ uncommon to have a negative number as the SCSI target
> device; in fact, it _is_ an unsigned int already.
>
FWIW, the only other driver (gdth) which I see uses this API has this_id
= -1 in the scsi host template.
> But alright, I'll give it a go; let's see what I'll end up with.
note: If we want a fixed scsi_device per host, calling
scsi_mq_setup_tags() -> scsi_get_host_dev() will fail as shost state is
not running. Maybe we need to juggle some things there to provide a
generic solution.
thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-07 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-10 16:25 [PATCH RFC v2 00/24] scsi: enable reserved commands for LLDDs John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 01/24] scsi: add 'nr_reserved_cmds' field to the SCSI host template John Garry
2020-03-10 23:08 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-11 6:55 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-03-11 8:00 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 02/24] scsi: allocate separate queue for reserved commands John Garry
2020-03-10 18:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-10 21:08 ` John Garry
2020-03-11 6:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-11 6:58 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-03-11 7:51 ` John Garry
2020-04-06 9:05 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-04-07 11:54 ` John Garry
2020-04-07 14:00 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-04-07 14:35 ` John Garry [this message]
2020-04-07 14:45 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-04-07 15:19 ` John Garry
2020-04-07 16:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-04-23 14:13 ` John Garry
2020-04-23 14:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-04-23 15:33 ` John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 03/24] blk-mq: Implement blk_mq_rq_is_reserved() John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 04/24] scsi: Add scsi_{get, put}_reserved_cmd() John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 05/24] csiostor: use reserved command for LUN reset John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 06/24] scsi: add scsi_cmd_from_priv() John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 07/24] virtio_scsi: use reserved commands for TMF John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 08/24] scsi: add host tagset busy iterator John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 09/24] fnic: use reserved commands John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 10/24] fnic: use scsi_host_tagset_busy_iter() to traverse commands John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 11/24] hpsa: move hpsa_hba_inquiry after scsi_add_host() John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 12/24] hpsa: use reserved commands John Garry
2020-03-11 8:10 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-17 9:38 ` John Garry
2020-03-17 9:48 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-03-30 13:42 ` John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 13/24] hpsa: use blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to traverse outstanding commands John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 14/24] hpsa: drop refcount field from CommandList John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 15/24] snic: use reserved commands John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 16/24] snic: use tagset iter for traversing commands John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 17/24] aacraid: move scsi_add_host() John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 18/24] aacraid: use private commands John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 19/24] aacraid: replace cmd_list with scsi_host_tagset_busy_iter() John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 20/24] aacraid: use scsi_host_tagset_busy_iter() to traverse outstanding commands John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 21/24] dpt_i2o: drop cmd_list usage John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 22/24] scsi: drop scsi command list John Garry
2020-03-10 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-10 20:47 ` John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 23/24] scsi: libsas: aic94xx: hisi_sas: mvsas: pm8001: Allocate Scsi_cmd for slow task John Garry
2020-03-10 16:25 ` [PATCH RFC v2 24/24] scsi: hisi_sas: Use libsas slow task SCSI command John Garry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20ebe296-9e57-b3e3-21b3-63a09ce86036@huawei.com \
--to=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=chenxiang66@hisilicon.com \
--cc=esc.storagedev@microsemi.com \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).