linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] scsi-mq prototype discussion

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]
Date:	Wed, 17 Jul 2013 04:52:32 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
	<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
	James Smart <James.Smart@...lex.Com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kmo@...erainc.com" <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"scameron@...rdog.cce.hp.com" <scameron@...rdog.cce.hp.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] scsi-mq prototype discussion

On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 15:15 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16 2013, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 06:53 +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:52 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > > On 07/12/2013 03:33 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 18:02 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:23:32PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > >>> Drilling down the work items ahead of a real mainline push is high on
> > > > >>> priority list for discussion.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The parties to be included in such a discussion are:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>   - Jens Axboe (blk-mq author)
> > > > >>>   - James Bottomley (scsi maintainer)
> > > > >>>   - Christoph Hellwig (scsi)
> > > > >>>   - Martin Petersen (scsi)
> > > > >>>   - Tejun Heo (block + libata)
> > > > >>>   - Hannes Reinecke (scsi error recovery)
> > > > >>>   - Kent Overstreet (block, per-cpu ida)
> > > > >>>   - Stephen Cameron (scsi-over-pcie driver)
> > > > >>>   - Andrew Vasquez (qla2xxx LLD)
> > > > >>>   - James Smart (lpfc LLD)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Isn't this something that should have been discussed at the storage
> > > > >> mini-summit a few months ago?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The scsi-mq prototype, along with blk-mq (in it's current form) did not
> > > > > exist a few short months ago.  ;)
> > > > > 
> > > > >>  It seems very specific to one subsystem to be a kernel summit topic,
> > > > >> don't you think?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's no more subsystem specific than half of the other proposals so far,
> > > > > and given it's reach across multiple subsystems (block, scsi, target),
> > > > > and the amount of off-list interest on the topic, I think it would make
> > > > > a good candidate for discussion.
> > > > > 
> > > > And it'll open up new approaches which previously were dismissed,
> > > > like re-implementing multipathing on top of scsi-mq, giving us the
> > > > single scsi device like other UNIX systems.
> > > > 
> > > > Also I do think there's quite some synergy to be had, as with blk-mq
> > > > we could nail each queue to a processor, which would eliminate the
> > > > need for locking.
> > > > Which could be useful for other subsystems, too.
> > > 
> > > Lets start with discussing this on the list, please, and then see where
> > > we go from there ...
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, the discussion is beginning to make it's way to the list.  I've
> > mostly been waiting for blk-mq to get a wider review before taking the
> > early scsi-mq prototype driver to a larger public audience.
> > 
> > Primarily, I'm now reaching out to the people most effected by existing
> > scsi_request_fn() based performance limitations.  Most of them have
> > abandoned existing scsi_request_fn() based logic in favor of raw block
> > make_request() based drivers, and are now estimating the amount of
> > effort to move to an scsi-mq based approach.
> > 
> > Regardless, as the prototype progresses over the next months, having a
> > face-to-face discussion with the key parties in the room would be very
> > helpful given the large amount of effort involved to actually make this
> > type of generational shift in SCSI actually happen.
> 
> There's a certain amount of overlap with the aio/O_DIRECT work as well.
> But if it's not a general session, could always be a BOF or something.
> 
> I'll second the argument that most technical topics probably DO belong
> in a topic related workshop. But that leaves us with basically only
> process related topics at KS, I don't think it hurts to have a bit of
> tech meat on the bone too. At least I personally miss that part of KS
> from years gone by.

Heh well, given that most of the block mq discussions at LSF have been
you saying you really should get around to cleaning up and posting the
code, you'll understand my wanting to see that happen first ...

I suppose we could try to run a storage workshop within KS, but I think
most of the mini summit slots have already gone.  There's also plumbers
if all slots are gone (I would say that, being biased and on the
programme committee) Ric is running the storage and Filesystems MC

http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2013/ocw/events/LPC2013/tracks/159

James

--
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/