Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:26:49 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@fenrus.demon.nl>
Cc: Dan Aloni <da-x@monatomic.org>,
       Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_execute_async() should add to the tail of the  queue
Message-ID: <20061219112649.GG5010@kernel.dk>
References: <20061219083507.GA20847@localdomain> <1166522613.3365.1198.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1166522613.3365.1198.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1236
Lines: 31

On Tue, Dec 19 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 10:35 +0200, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > scsi_execute_async() has replaced scsi_do_req() a few versions ago, 
> > but it also incurred a change of behavior. I noticed that over-queuing 
> > a SCSI device using that function causes I/Os to be starved from 
> > low-level queuing for no justified reason.
> >  
> > I think it makes much more sense to perserve the original behaviour 
> > of scsi_do_req() and add the request to the tail of the queue.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> some things should really be added to the head of the queue, like
> maintenance requests and error handling requests. Are you sure this is
> the right change? At least I'd expect 2 apis, one for a head and one for
> a "normal" queueing...

It does sounds broken - head insertion should only be used for careful
internal commands, not be the default way user issued commands. Looking
at the current users, the patch makes sense to me.

-- 
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/