linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/1] AHCI: Optimize interrupt processing

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: <1374193399.7397.973.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:23:19 -0700
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Cc:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/1] AHCI: Optimize interrupt processing

On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:12 -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 12:51 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 18:19 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:38:03PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> >>> [    7.927818] scsi_execute(): Calling blk_mq_free_request >>>
> >>> [    7.927826] scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      ST9500530NS      CC03 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
> >>>
> >>> OK, so INQUIRY response payload is looking as expected here.
> >>
> >> Yep. It is not on the top of my head, but I remember something like INQUIRYs
> >> are emulated and thus do not have payload.
> >>
> >>> [    7.927960] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Sector size 0 reported, assuming 512.
> >>> [    7.927964] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 1 512-byte logical blocks: (512 B/512 B)
> >>> [    7.927965] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 0-byte physical blocks
> >>>
> >>> Strange..  READ_CAPACITY appears to be returning a payload as zeros..?
> >>
> >> Yep. Because blk_execute_rq() does not put the proper callback and data do
> >> not get copied from sg's to bounce buffer. That is why I tried to use
> >> blk_mq_execute_rq() instead. Once I do that, data start getting read and
> >> booting stops elsewhere.
> > 
> > Mmmmmm.
> > 
> > The call to blk_queue_bounce() exists within blk_mq_make_request(), but
> > AFAICT this should still be getting invoked regardless of if the struct
> > request is dispatched into blk-mq via the modified blk_execute_rq() ->
> > blk_execute_rq_nowait() -> blk_mq_insert_request() codepath, or directly
> > via blk_mq_execute_rq()..
> > 
> 
> blk_mq_make_request is not called from the blk insert/execute paths.
> blk_mq_make_request takes a bio and tries to merge it with a request and
> adds it to the queue. It is only called when the make_request_fn is
> called like when generic_make_request is called.
> 
> blk_mq_insert_request adds a already formed request to the queue. It is
> already formed so that is why that path does not bounce bios. The
> bios/pages should already be added within the drivers restrictions. So
> for the read_cap path, the call to blk_rq_map_kern in scsi_execute does
> the blk_queue_bounce call.
> 

<nod>, just noticed the blk_queue_bounce() in blk_rq_map_kern().  

Not sure why this doesn't seem to be doing what it's supposed to for
libata just yet..

> Just saw this while trying out iscsi with the scsi-mq stuff :)
> 

Took at stab at this a while back, but ended getting distracted on other
items.  Do you have an initial conversion running yet..?

--nab

--
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/