LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ed Lin" <>
To: "David Somayajulu" <>,
	"Michael Reed" <>
Cc: "linux-scsi" <>,
	"linux-kernel" <>,
	"james.Bottomley" <>,
	"jeff" <>,
	"Promise_Linux" <>,
	"Jens Axboe" <>
Subject: RE: [patch] scsi: use lock per host instead of per device for shared queue tag host
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:14:22 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Somayajulu [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:03 PM
> To: Ed Lin; Michael Reed
> Cc: linux-scsi; linux-kernel; james.Bottomley; jeff; 
> Promise_Linux; Jens Axboe
> Subject: RE: [patch] scsi: use lock per host instead of per 
> device for shared queue tag host
> > It seems another driver(qla4xxx) is also using shared queue tag.
> > It is natural to imagine there might be same symptom in that
> > driver. But I don't know the driver and have no hardware so I
> > can not say anything certain about it.
> qla4xxx implements slightly differently, in the sense we 
> don't have the
> equivalent of         
> struct st_ccb ccb[MU_MAX_REQUEST]; 
> which is in struct st_hba. In other words we don't have a local array
> which like stex to keep track of the outstanding commands to the hba.
> We had a discussion on this one while implementing block-layer tagging
> in qla4xxx and Jens Axboe added the test_and_set_bit() in the 
> following
> code in blk_queue_start_tag() to take care of it.
> 	do {
> 		tag = find_first_zero_bit(bqt->tag_map, bqt->max_depth);
> 		if (tag >= bqt->max_depth)
> 			return 1;
> 	} while (test_and_set_bit(tag, bqt->tag_map));
> Please see the following link for the discussion
> Cheers
> David Somayajulu
> QLogic Corporation

Yes, this piece of code of allocating tag, in itself, is safe.
But the following

	if (unlikely(!__test_and_clear_bit(tag, bqt->tag_map))) {
		printk(KERN_ERR "%s: attempt to clear non-busy tag
		       __FUNCTION__, tag);

code of freeing tag (in blk_queue_end_tag())seems to be using
unsafe __test_and_clear_bit instead of test_and_clear_bit.
I once changed it to test_and_clear_bit and thought it was fixed.
But the panic happened thereafter nonetheless(using gcc 3.4.6.
gcc 4.1.0 is better but still with kernel errors). bqt also needs
to be protected in this case. Replacing queue lock per device with
a host lock is a simple but logical fix for it. To introduce a
more refined lock is possible, but seems too tedious and elaborate
for this issue, since a queue lock is already out there, and a
hostwide lock is needed anyway.


Ed Lin

             reply	other threads:[~2007-01-25  3:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-25  3:14 Ed Lin [this message]
2007-01-25 15:34 ` Jens Axboe
2007-01-25 15:47   ` Jens Axboe
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-01-26  1:15 Ed Lin
2007-01-26  1:21 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-01-24 23:33 Ed Lin
2007-01-25  1:02 ` David Somayajulu
2007-01-24  0:53 Ed Lin
2007-01-24 15:59 ` Michael Reed
2007-01-24 16:59 ` James Bottomley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='RE: [patch] scsi: use lock per host instead of per device for shared queue tag host' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).