linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v3 2/7] ata: libata-scsi: Add ata_internal

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: <71b56949-e4d7-fd94-c44a-867080b7a4fa@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 17:07:26 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, hare@...e.de, bvanassche@....org,
        hch@....de, ming.lei@...hat.com, niklas.cassel@....com
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, jinpu.wang@...ud.ionos.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@...wei.com, john.garry2@...l.dcu.ie
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 2/7] ata: libata-scsi: Add
 ata_internal_queuecommand()

On 10/28/22 17:01, John Garry wrote:
> On 27/10/2022 23:25, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> So we have this overall flow:
>>>
>>> ata_exec_internal_sg():
>>>    -> alloc request
>>>    -> blk_execute_rq_nowait()
>>>        ... -> scsi_queue_rq()
>>> 		-> sht->reserved_queuecommd()
>>> 			-> ata_internal_queuecommand()
>>>
>>> And then we have ata_internal_queuecommand() -> ata_sas_queuecmd() ->
>>> ata_scsi_queue_internal() -> ata_qc_issue().
>>>
>>> Hope it makes sense.
>> OK. Got it.
>> However, ata_exec_internal_sg() being used only from EH context with the
>> queue quiesced, will blk_execute_rq_nowait() work ? Is there an exception
>> for internal reserved tags ?
>>
> 
> Well, yeah. So if some error happens and EH kicks in, then full queue 
> depth of requests may be allocated. I have seen this for NCQ error. So 
> this is why I make in very first patch change allow us to allocate 
> reserved request from sdev request queue even when budget is fully 
> allocated.
> 
> Please also note that for AHCI, I make reserved depth =1, while for SAS 
> controllers it is greater. This means that in theory we could alloc > 1x 
> reserved command for SATA disk, but I don't think it matters.

Yes, 1 is enough. However, is 1 reserved out of 32 total, meaning that the
user can only use 31 tags ? or is it 32+1 reserved ? which we can do since
when using the reserved request, we will not use a hw tag (all reserved
requests will be non-ncq).

The 32 + 1 scheme will work. But for CDL command completion handling, we
will need a NCQ command to do a read log, to avoid forcing a queue drain.
For that to reliably work, we'll need a 31+1+1 setup...

> 
> Thanks,
> John

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research