Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:41:31 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>,
       linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata error handling fixes (ATAPI)
Message-ID: <20051115184131.GJ7787@suse.de>
References: <20051114195717.GA24373@havoc.gtf.org> <20051115074148.GA17459@htj.dyndns.org> <4379AA5B.1060900@pobox.com> <4379B28E.9070708@gmail.com> <4379C062.3010302@pobox.com> <20051115120016.GD7787@suse.de> <437A2814.1060308@cs.wisc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <437A2814.1060308@cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3174
Lines: 67

On Tue, Nov 15 2005, Mike Christie wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 15 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >>>For departure of libata from SCSI, I was thinking more of another more 
> >>>generic block device framework in which libata can live in.  And I 
> >>>thought that it was reasonable to assume that the framework would supply 
> >>>a EH mechanism which supports queue stalling/draining and separate 
> >>>thread.  So, my EH patches tried to make the same environment for libata 
> >>
> >>A big reason why libata uses the SCSI layer is infrastructure like this. 
> >>It would certainly be nice to see timeouts and EH at the block layer. 
> >>The block layer itself already supports queue stalling/draining.
> >
> >
> >I have a pretty simple plan for this:
> >
> >- Add a timer to struct request. It already has a timeout field for
> >  SG_IO originated requests, we could easily utilize this in general.
> >  I'm not sure how the querying of timeout would happen so far, it would
> >  probably require a q->set_rq_timeout() hook to ask the low level
> >  driver to set/return rq->timeout for a given request.
> >
> >- Add a timeout hook to struct request_queue that would get invoked from
> >  the timeout handler. Something along the lines of:
> >
> >        - Timeout on a request happens. Freeze the queue and use
> >          kblockd to take the actual timeout into process context, where
> >          we call the queue ->rq_timeout() hook. Unfreeze/reschedule
> >          queue operations based on what the ->rq_timeout() hook tells
> >          us.
> >
> >That is generic enough to be able to arm the timeout automatically from
> >->elevator_activate_req_fn() and dearm it when it completes or gets
> >deactivated. It should also be possible to implement the SCSI error
> >handling on top of that.
> >
> 
> To disable the timeout would you then have scsi_done call a block layer 
> function to disarm it then follow the current flow where or do you think 
> it would be nice to move the scsi softirq code up to block layer. So 
> scsi_done would call a block layer function that would disarm the timer, 
> add the request to a block layer softirq list (a list like scsi-ml's 
> scsi_done_q), and then in the block layer softirq function it could call 
> a request_queue callout which for scsi-ml's device queue would call 
> scsi_decide_disposition and return if it wanted the request requeued or 
> how many sectors completed or to kick off the eh. I had stated on this 
> for my block layer multipath driver, but can seperate the patches if 
> this would be useful.

Yeah, that was part of my plan as well. I did post such a patch a year
or so ago, in a thread about decreasing ide completion latencies.

> Would ide benefit from running from a softirq and would it be able to 
> use such a thing?

It's generally useful as it allows lock free completion from the irq
path, so that's goodness.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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