[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] use scatter lists for all block pc requests and simplify hw handlers

James Bottomley wrote:
Well ... while I've got your attention, the only complexity I see to
converting sg is the hd->iovec_count != 0 case, which is doing vectored
SG from user land.

This can be implemented (basically you do multiple bio attachment to a
request), and probably in the block layer (since block SG_IO would then
pick up the capability).

How important is this functionality?  Are there any applications using

I don't think it is important and I'm not aware of any real world applications that are using it. Naturally, I will find out if that is actually true after it gets removed.

On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 15:43 +1000, Douglas Gilbert wrote:

There is no max_length on sense_buffer. How does one
know how much, if any, sense data was written (returned).

Well, given the way most initiators work we can't do variable length
sense buffer sizes; it's limited by SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE, which seems
to be a good fixed value assumption.  The reason we don't have this is
because the block layer doesn't.  It also assumes SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE
is the correct maximum.

I believe that I am guilty for SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE. But implementation details shouldn't necessarily limit new interface functions. Again OSD could be a problem here as it uses descriptor sense format with larger descriptors (than SPC-3). Perhaps Liran might comment on whether the current 96 bytes is sufficient. [According to SPC-3 there is still a limit of 252 bytes.]

Also scsi_do_command() could drop the direction
argument and have an "in" pair (pointer and length)
and an "out" pair. Then it could cope with OSD and
advanced SBC-2 commands.

resid is a very useful return parameter.

Yes, I spotted that too ... already in my version II ...

Perhaps the *done() callback should have
two more arguments (and scsi_do_command()
one more argument). And 'buffer' and 'bufflen' have
not changed in name but I assume they have in nature.

Additionally perhaps it is time to start thinking about
a clean pass through. Something that can pass a packet
command (like sg can at the moment) but to a scsi_host
(or a transport host). An additional argument would be
needed to pass addressing information to the LLD. I'm
thinking about the SAS Serial Management Protocol (SMP)
that has nothing to do with the block layer or the
SCSI mid level. We want to bind to a SAS host (initiator
port) and supply a SAS address (of the SMP target
which is most likely an expander).

Well, pretty much the block layer SG_IO is a clean passthrough.

Depending on the driver which controls the device node that has been opened, there are various policy decisions to maneouver (e.g. sr and st require O_NONBLOCK on open() otherwise they will wait until media is loaded, making the SCSI Test Unit Ready command pointless). Also there are state machines in some drivers, that can either be confused by the pass through or vice versa (e.g. try using the sg_prevent utility in sg3_utils via a sr device node, then try again with a sg device node). Should maximum transfer size limits that apply to the READ/WRITE SBC commands also apply to READ/WRITE_BUFFER SPC commands?

As always "clean" is the debatable word.

direction I think it makes most sense to move in is towards services
provided by the block layer (even if that means additions to it) rather
than away from them.  Even for arbitrary SAS expanders, we can detect
and bind to them; once that's done we have a connection and a management
application can read and set sysfs parameters for the object.

The SAS SMP protocol is for discovering what is out there. In the extreme case no block device has been found. There is just a SAS HBA on a PCI bus with sysfs information telling us about some phys and what they are attached to. If the attached device type is an expander that implements a SMP target then we need to issue SMP frames (commands) through a local phy to the SAS address of the expander. I'm not sure we need scatter-gather, command merging, tagged queues or pseudo block devices to accomplish this.

Doug Gilbert

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]