Sorry, dropped kernelnewbies somehow.
Please keep them in cc. Your message and my reply below.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Dmitry Filippov
> wrote:
>> Greg,
>>
>> thank you for reply!
>> Yeah there is a kind of analogy to network stack in scsi stack.
>>
>> the are 3 layers in scsi stack:
>> upper layer (sg, sd, sr, st drivers) that implements high level abstraction
>> middle layer which routes scsi commnads/requests to low level drivers
>> low layer - actually host adapters. low level drivers which registers
>> within scsi stack, gets scsi commands from mid layer and perform
>> actual actions on device.
>>
>> so from file system any syscall reaches vfs layer first, and then to
>> upper scsi layer.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Dmitry
>
> vfs actually talks to the block i/o layer which may or may not include
> multiple device mapper layers. Device mapper (DM) can of course
> implement logical volumes and/or some raid levels by combining
> multiple block devices. It can also do block translations etc.
>
> (There is also the MD layer, but I don't really know how it fits in.
> DM is a newer subsystem and has a cleaner architecture I believe, but
> it doesn't offer as many raid levels as MD does. You can have both DM
> and MD in use together if appropriate.)
>
> At the bottom of the stack there is also a scsi-physical layer: much
> like IP can travel over multiple physical media (Ethernet, T1/E1,
> etc.) scsi can traverse lots of different physical media.
>
> And then in some cases there is a translation layer below that. SAT
> (SCSI / ATA Translation) is the best known and typically implemented
> in external USB carriers.
>
> So it's more like:
>
> syscall ->
> vfs ->
> (block layer <-> device mapper <-> MD) ->
> scsi upper layer ->
> scsi mid layer ->
> scsi low layer ->
> scsi physical (eg. Parallel, SAS, USB) ->
> translation (eg. SAT)
>
> Notice how I showed the block layer, device mapper, and MD on one
> line. That's because they really interact a lot and potentially have
> multiple layers of DM / MD translations.
>
> Also, I don't show libata in the above stack. If you want to talk to
> a SATA drive, then you'll want to understand how it fits in.
>
> (If you don't know, libata is NOT a full fledged block driver. It was
> shoe horned into the above SCSI stack. That's why it's /dev/sdx now
> and not /dev/hda like it was 10 years ago. The /dev/hda (legacy IDE)
> block driver stack is still in kernel, but it no longer accepts major
> updates. (deprecated? I think that's right.))
>
> But all that's the linux kernel structure.
>
> There are also scsi layers defined in the SCSI specs. If you're going
> to work with SCSI you will want to be somewhat familiar with the
> specs. t10 is the SCSI standards body. Take a look a this
> architectural chart:
>
> http://www.t10.org/scsi-3.htm
>
> Note that it is the architecture of the specs, and not necessarily the
> architecture of kernel.
>
> I think libata fits into that architecture just below the SAM level,
> so it is a sibling of parallel SCSI, SAS, FC, iSCSI, USB, etc.
>
> Again, that is not really the optimal way for libata to work, but it
> prevents having to write unique upper layers for libata. libata has
> been around as long as the 2.6 kernel at least (it was in 2.4 too, but
> was less important).
>
> It has been a goal of the libata developers to become a full fledged
> block driver for all these years, but I don't think they've made much
> progress on that. I suspect it's too much work for little gain.
>
> ==
> Now with that basic info in place, back to your original desire:
>
> "I want to write module that implements SCSI-disk logic, keeping its
> data on block device."
>
> To me, that sounds like libata. Libata is a kernel module that sits
> under the SCSI upper/mid layers and translates scsi commands to ATA
> commands and then sends those commands to a ATA controller (both SATA
> and PATA controllers are supported).
>
> But, it sounds like you want to be able to issue your writes as SCSI
> requests? Is that right? If so, that almost sounds like iSCSI with a
> built-in loopback network.
>
> Maybe you can elaborate using more specific terminology?
>
> FYI: If I were you, I would want to create a new DM (device mapper)
> module that could tie in directly at the block layer of the linux
> kernel. It would be able to accept block i/o commands from the block
> layer, manipulate those commands, then re-issue them to the block
> layer so they could be pushed down into the actual block stack (ie.
> SCSI).
>
> All the infrastructure is already in place to do that.
>
> Thus, while you say you want to write a SCSI module, I think a Device
> Mapper module makes far more sense to do what you want. And you're
> not forcing your concept on to the kernel. Instead your taking the
> kernel's design and leveraging it.
>
> Hope that helps
> Greg
___
Kern
