luben@splentec.com said:
> TCQ goes hand in hand with Task Attributes. I.e. a tagged task is an
> I_T_L_Q nexus and has a task attribute (Simple, Ordered, Head of
> Queue, ACA; cf. SAM-3, 4.9.1).
I believe the point I was making is that our only current expectation is
simple tag, which is unordered.
> aybe the generator of tags (block layer, user process through sg, etc)
> should also set the tag attribute of the task, as per SAM-3. Most
> often (as currently implicitly) this would be a Simple task attribute.
> Why not the block layer borrow the idea from SAM-3, I see IDE only
> coming closer to SCSI...
> This way there'd be no need for explicit barriers. They can be
> implemented through Ordered and Head of Queue Tasks, everything else
> is Simple attribute task (IO scheduler can play with those as it
> wishes).
> This would provide for a more general basis the whole game (IO
> scheduling, TCQ, IO barriers, etc).
That would be rather the wrong approach. As the layers move up from the
physical hardware, the level of abstraction becomes greater, so the current
proposal is (descending the abstractions):
journal transaction->REQ_BARRIER->cache synchronise (ide) or ordered tag (scsi)
Most of the implementation is in ll_rw_blk.c if you want to take a look
James
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:39 EST