Re: [PATCH]: New implementation of scsi_execute_async()

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin]

Boaz Harrosh, on 07/19/2009 03:34 PM wrote:
> On 07/16/2009 09:13 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> > Boaz Harrosh, on 07/15/2009 12:19 PM wrote:
> > > > > >  block/blk-map.c            |  536 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >  drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c    |  108 ++++++++-
> > > > > >  include/linux/blkdev.h     |    6 
> > > > > >  include/scsi/scsi_device.h |   11 
> > > > > >  4 files changed, 660 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > The scsi bits are not needed and just add complexity. 
> > > > > allocate the request, call blk_rq_map_kern_sg() and
> > > > > blk_execute_xxx directly from your driver. Since you exacly
> > > > > know your code path lots of if(s) and flags are saved and that ugly
> > > > > scsi_io_context allocation.
> > > > Are you against any helper functions? scsi_lib.c has only scsi_execute_async(),
> > > > which is a small helper function, which only hides internal machinery details.
> > > > All the flags it has are needed and can't be avoided, especially
> > > > SCSI_ASYNC_EXEC_FLAG_HAS_TAIL_SPACE_FOR_PADDING
> > > Yes I'm sure. This will not be accepted. Just do it directly in the driver
> > > like all other ULD's and block layer users. Use direct blk API. All these little
> > > things and flags you are talking about are block specific, there is no single thing
> > > SCSI about them.
> > Hmm, I don't understand. What's wrong in this small helper function? Are 
> > you against any helper functions, so, all users of, e.g., for_each_sg() 
> > must instead open code the corresponding functionality?
> >
> > Do you want me to move scsi_execute_async() from scsi_lib.c to 
> > scst_lib.c and rename it to scst_execute_async()? This is the maximum I 
> > can do, because I need this functionality. But it will make all other 
> > possible users to duplicate it.

OK, I'll do. But people who will miss it, will blame you by pretty bad
words!

> Yes that's what I want, and if you can not save some of it's complexity
> by, for example, merging of scsi_io_context with the request structure you
> already have at scst level, or save the double-chained-callbacks at the end,
> then you've done something wrong.

Are you sure??

As I already wrote, in SCST sense allocated on-demand only. It is done
for performance reasons, because the sense is needed _very_ rarely and
the buffer for it is quite big, so it's better to save those allocating,
zeroing and CPU cache trashing. The fact that Linux SCSI ML requires
sense buffer preallocation is for me something rather to be fixed.
Pass-through SCST backend is used relatively rarely as well, so it's
better to keep the sense preallocation for it in the separate code path.
Then, if there is the sense preallocation, it doesn't matter to alloc
with it few bytes more.

Is it getting clearer now?

> > Does flag SCSI_ASYNC_EXEC_FLAG_AT_HEAD have nothing to do to SCSI, really?
>
> Exactly, it's just a parameter at the call to blk_execute_nowait() with it's
> own defines already. Nothing SCSI.

Well, going this way we can go too far.. Like, to assertion that SCSI
HEAD OF QUEUE task attribute is a property of the Linux block layer as well.

> > > > The allocation of scsi_io_context is unavoidable, because sense buffer should
> > > > be allocated anyway.
> > > >  
> > > NO!, driver needs to do it's job and provide a sense buffer and call blk API
> > > just like all the other drivers. this has nothing to do with SCSI.
> > What job should a driver do? As I wrote, for SCST allocation of the 
> > sense buffer is necessary in any case (in SCST sense is allocated on 
> > demand only), so it doesn't matter to allocate few bytes more, if it 
> > allows to hide unneeded low level details. The same, I guess, should be 
> > true for all other possible users of this functionality.
>
> Easiest, as all users do is: If you already have your scst request or
> command, or what ever you call it. So add a sense_buffer array embedded
> there, end of story no allocation needed.
>
> How can you be a scsi-target and return the proper errors upstream,
> without digging into sense-buffer and error returns to produce the
> correct report.

Most SCST backends don't deal with senses at all and generate them only
at the latest stage of the commands processing to deliver errors (e.g.,
file read errors) to initiators.

> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * blk_rq_unmap_kern_sg - "unmaps" data buffers in the request
> > > > > > + * @req:	request to unmap
> > > > > > + * @do_copy:	sets copy data between buffers, if needed, or not
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Description:
> > > > > > + *    It frees all additional buffers allocated for SG->BIO mapping.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +void blk_rq_unmap_kern_sg(struct request *req, int do_copy)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	struct scatterlist *hdr = (struct scatterlist *)req->end_io_data;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > You can't use req->end_io_data  here! req->end_io_data is reserved for
> > > > > blk_execute_async callers. It can not be used for private block use.
> > > > Why? I see blk_execute_rq() happily uses it. Plus, I implemented stacking of
> > > > it in scsi_execute_async().
> > > As I said users of blk_execute_rq_nowait() blk_execute_rq is a user of
> > > blk_execute_rq_nowait just as the other guy.
> > >
> > > "implemented stacking" is exactly the disaster I'm talking about.
> > > Also it totaly breaks the blk API. Now I need to to specific code
> > > when mapping with this API as opposed to other mappings when I execute
> > >
> > > > Do you have better suggestion?
> > > I have not look at it deeply but you'll need another system. Perhaps
> > > like map_user/unmap_user where you give unmap_user the original bio.
> > > Each user of map_user needs to keep a pointer to the original bio
> > > on mapping. Maybe some other options as well. You can use the bio's
> > > private data pointer, when building the first bio from scatter-list.
> > I can't see how *well documented* stacking of end_io_data can be/lead to 
> > any problem. All the possible alternatives I can see are worse:
> >
> > 1. Add in struct request one more field, like "void *blk_end_io_data" 
> > and use it.
> >
> > 2. Duplicate code of bio's allocation and chaining 
> > (__blk_rq_map_kern_sg()) for the copy case with additional code for 
> > allocation and copying of the copy buffers on per-bio basis and use 
> > bio->bi_private to track the copy info. Tejun Heo used this approach, 
> > but he had only one bio without any chaining. With the chaining this 
> > approach becomes terribly overcomplicated and ugly with *NO* real gain.
> >
> > Do you like any of them? If not, I'd like to see _practical_ suggestions.
>
> Again all this is not needed and should be dropped it is already done
> by bio bouncing. All you need to do is add the pages to bios, chain when
> full, and call blk_make_request.

Can you show me a place where the bio bouncing, i.e.
blk_queue_bounce(), does bouncing of misaligned buffers?

I don't see such places. Instead, I see that all users of the block API,
who cares about the alignment (sg, st, sr, etc.), directly or indirectly
take care about it, by, e.g., switching to copying functions, before
calling blk_queue_bounce(). See blk_rq_map_user_iov(), for instance.
This is exactly what I implemented: handling of misaligned buffers on
the layer upper blk_queue_bounce().

Thanks,
Vlad


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/