On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 09:58:22AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> +struct scsiio_tracker *
> +mpt2sas_get_st_from_smid(struct MPT2SAS_ADAPTER *ioc, u16 smid)
> +{
> +     if (shost_use_blk_mq(ioc->shost)) {
> +             struct scsi_cmnd *scmd;
> +
> +             scmd = scsi_mq_find_tag(ioc->shost, smid - 1);
> +             if (!scmd)
> +                     return NULL;
> +             return scsi_mq_scmd_to_pdu(scmd);
> +     } else
> +             return &ioc->scsi_lookup[smid - 1];
> +}

The mq case will also work for the !mq case when you call
scsi_host_find_tag and scsi_cmd_priv.   In general all the mq-specific
codepathes you add should become the default and only one, even if this
requires a lit bit of additional core work.

> @@ -1724,6 +1739,18 @@ mpt2sas_base_get_smid_scsiio(struct MPT2SAS_ADAPTER 
> *ioc, u8 cb_idx,
>       struct scsiio_tracker *request;
>       u16 smid;
>  
> +     if (shost_use_blk_mq(ioc->shost)) {
> +             /*
> +              * If we don't have a SCSI command associated with this smid,
> +              * bump it to high-prio
> +              */
> +             if (!scmd)
> +                     return mpt2sas_base_get_smid_hpr(ioc, cb_idx);

Seems like _ctl_do_mpt_command should be changed to just
call mpt2sas_base_get_smid_hpr unconditionally instead of adding this
hack  Preferably as a standalone preparatory patch.


>       unsigned long flags;
>       int i;
> -     struct chain_tracker *chain_req, *next;
> +
> +     if (shost_use_blk_mq(ioc->shost) && smid < ioc->hi_priority_smid) {
> +             struct scsiio_tracker *st;
> +
> +             st = mpt2sas_get_st_from_smid(ioc, smid);
> +             if (!st)
> +                     return;
> +
> +             st->direct_io = 0;
> +
> +             if (!list_empty(&st->chain_list)) {
> +                     spin_lock_irqsave(&ioc->scsi_lookup_lock, flags);
> +                     _dechain_st(ioc, st);
> +                     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->scsi_lookup_lock, flags);
> +             }

This whole chain list thing looks bonkers to me.  We always allocated
a fixed multiple of the queue depth in ->chain_lookup, but then do this
required list manipulation at least once per I/O submission and completion.

Seems like we should instead add an array of (cpu address, dma address)
tuples to the scsiio_tracker and avoid all the chain_lookup / chain_list
lookups entirely.

> +                     if (shost_use_blk_mq(ioc->shost)) {
> +                             scmd = scsi_mq_find_tag(ioc->shost,  i);
> +                             if (scsi_mq_scmd_started(scmd))
> +                                     pending++;

Ok, I guess we should move the request_started check into the _find_tag
helpers, as tags that aren't started aren't something that driver
should ever lookup.

> +static bool
> +_scmd_match(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, u16 handle, u32 lun)
> +{
> +     struct MPT2SAS_DEVICE *priv_data;
> +
> +     if (scmd == NULL || scmd->device == NULL ||
> +         scmd->device->hostdata == NULL)
> +             return false;

If the queue is started this can't ever happen.

> +     if (lun != scmd->device->lun)
> +             return false;

If you pass in a specific scsi_device and thus request_queue  this
can't happen.

> +static u16
> +_ctl_find_smid(struct MPT2SAS_ADAPTER *ioc, u16 handle, u32 lun)
> +{
> +     if (shost_use_blk_mq(ioc->shost))
> +             return _ctl_find_smid_mq(ioc, handle, lun);
> +     else
> +             return _ctl_find_smid_legacy(ioc, handle, lun);
> +}

The caller of this looks entirely broken.  It's a driver specific API
to submit task management commands, duplicating the mid level code,
and it doesn't even allow which task to target.  I think we should
just return a error when invoking MPI2_FUNCTION_SCSI_TASK_MGMT instead
of digging us an even deeper grave here.  If someone complains we'll
have to find a way to redirect it to the generic EH ioctls.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to