FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
> Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:46:34 +0300
>
>>> Roll all the required sglist definitions (request_bufflen,
>>> request_buffer, use_sg and sglist_len) into the sgtable pools.
>>>
>>> We're getting very close to the point where someone gets to sweep
>>> through the drivers eliminating the now superfluous non-sg path in the
>>> queuecommand. When that happens the only cases become no transfer or SG
>>> backed commands. At this point we can do a consolidation of the struct
>>> scsi_cmnd fields. This does represent the ideal time to sweep the sg
>>> list handling fields into the sgtable and simply have a single pointer
>>> to struct sgtable in the scsi_cmnd (== NULL is the signal for a no
>>> transfer command).
>>>
>> This is a grate Idea. Let me see if I understand what you mean.
>> 1. An sgtable is a single allocation with an sgtable header type
>> at the begining and a veriable size array of struct scatterlist.
>> something like:
>> struct sgtable {
>> struct sgtable_header {
>> unsigned sg_count, sglist_len, length;
>> struct sgtable* next; //for Jens's big io
>> } hdr;
>> struct scatterlist sglist[];
>> }
>
> Can we have more simple sgtable?
>
> struct sgtable {
> unsigned use_sg;
> unsigned length;
> unsigned sglist_len;
> struct scatterlist sglist[0];
> };
>
Yes sure. It was just an example.
One comment, use_sg => sg_count.
By the way I have forgotten some fields so it should be:
struct sgtable {
unsigned short sg_count;
unsigned short sg_pool; /* note that this is the pool index and not the
actual count */
unsigned length;
unsigned resid;
struct scatterlist sglist[0];
};
resid/length together with request->data_len can be optimized, this is the
current system.
>
> Then we could do something like this:
>
> struct scsi_host_sgtable_pool {
> size_t size;
> char *name;
> struct kmem_cache *slab;
> mempool_t *pool;
> };
>
> int __init scsi_init_queue(void)
> {
> for (i = 0; i < SG_MEMPOOL_NR; i++) {
> struct scsi_host_sgtable_pool *sgtbp = scsi_sgtable_pools + i;
> int size = sizeof(struct sgtable) + sgp->size * sizeof(struct
> scatterlist);
>
> sgp->slab = kmem_cache_create(sgp->name, size, 0,
> SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL, NULL);
> if (!sgp->slab) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "SCSI: can't init sg slab %s\n",
> sgp->name);
> }
>
> sgp->pool = mempool_create_slab_pool(SG_MEMPOOL_SIZE,
> sgp->slab);
>
>
I think we can do a better job here by fitting exactly the number of scatterlist
entries that will take up full pages including the header. This is sizes
dependent and can be compile-time calculated. For example in x86_64, with
header,
145 scatterlist will fit in a page so this is kind of magic number for this
arch.
could someone explain why we need scatterlist-max-count a base-2 number?
> Jens' chaining sg lists adds sg->next so we don't need
> sgtable->next. We can just add __use_sg to struct sgtable.
>
Yes but it uses the last struct scatterlist for the ->next, this way it is
saved.
On the other hand it wastes a pointer in small IOs. So I guess this is Jens's
call.
If the "->next" in both cases will point to a struct sgtable above than we
don't need
__use_sg since sg_pool(sglist_len) holds the pool this came from. If not
__use_sg
must be added to struct sgtable.
It looks like proposed change races with Jens's work so it's better be done
after
his. It could be nice if he incorporates some of the constrains from here before
hand.
>
>> 2. The way we can do this in stages: Meaning put up code that has
>> both sets of API, Transfer drivers one-by-one to new API, deprecate
>> old API for a kernel cycle or two. Than submit last piece of
>> code that removes the old API.
>> It can be done. We just need to copy sgtable_header fields
>> to the old fields, and let them stick around for a while.
>
> That's not bad, but can we convert all the LLDs all at once?
>
> The changes to scsi mid-layer are almost done. Probabaly, you can just
> add sgtable stuff (and scsi_dma_map/scsi_dma_unmap helper functions
> that Christoph proposed long ago) to my previous patch. It can be done
> for several hours. So you have enough time for the LLDs' changes.
I am here to do any work needed. I will wait to see what is decided.
I already have a 2.6.20 tree with all llds converted to things like
"scsi_uni(cmd)->sg" where scsi_uni() was pointing to:
struct scsi_data_buffer {
unsigned short sg_count;
unsigned short sg_pool; /* note that this is the pool index and not the
actual count */
unsigned length;
unsigned resid;
struct scatterlist *sg;
};
as part of my old bidi work. So a simple search and replace can be done to the
new API/names.
>
>
>> 3. The second bidi sgtable will hang on request->next_rq->special.
>
> I think so.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
