linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: rewrite SCSI host scheme to be one per ATA host

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49F0456B.2050502@garzik.org>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:39:39 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: rewrite SCSI host scheme to be one per ATA host

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Currently, libata creates a Scsi_Host per port.  This was originally
>>> done to leverage SCSI's infrastructure to arbitrate among master/slave
>>> devices, but is not needed for most modern SATA controllers.   And I
>>> _think_ it is not needed for master/slave if done properly, either.
>> BTW note the above, with regards to the libata SCSI->block conversion.  
>> libata currently relies on SCSI for some amount of generic device  
>> arbitration, in several situations (see ->qc_defer,  
>> SCSI_MLQUEUE_.*_BUSY).  libata expects SCSI to be intelligent and not  
>> starve devices, etc.
> 
> Defer looks like internal policy, I don't see that functioning any
> different in the block layer. SCSI_MLQUEUE_*_BUSY in SCSI is primarily
> using the block layer functionality of BLKPREP_DEFER to begin with, so I
> think we're pretty close to providing all that already.

It's not quite that simple.  I am referring mainly to arbitration across 
multiple request_queue's.  SCSI has useful code in place to deal with 
target-busy and host-busy conditions, both of which could potentially be 
blocking and unblocking multiple request queues.

mlqueue is much more than just a wrapper over block requeueing 
functions.  Read scsi_next_command() and scsi_run_queue(), and grep for 
starved_list, host_{busy,blocked}, target_{busy,blocked}, 
device_{busy,blocked}.

In our master/slave case, we must choose between queue A and queue B, 
making sure to starve neither.  For simplex DMA, we potentially have 
queues A, B, C and D serving requests across the "bus bottleneck," and 
must ensure no starvation of A, B, C or D.

Although I have no code to back this up, my gut feeling is that a 
"request queue group" object, with associated functions, that would be 
the appropriate place for cross-queue or "host-wide" (as in, struct 
Scsi_Host or struct ata_host) functionality.

Whatever the solution, libata definitely makes use of SCSI's 
cross-request_queue arbitration, so any move to block will require 
similar functionality.

	Jeff

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