On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 19:28 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
quoted text
> --- On Mon, 2/4/08, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 18:01 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > --- On Mon, 2/4/08, James Bottomley
> > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The enclosure misc device is really
> > just a
> > > > library providing
> > > > > > sysfs
> > > > > > support for physical enclosure devices
> > and their
> > > > > > components.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Who is the target audience/user of those
> > facilities?
> > > > > a) The kernel itself needing to read/write
> > SES pages?
> > > > 
> > > > That depends on the enclosure integration, but
> > right at the
> > > > moment, it
> > > > doesn't
> > > 
> > > Yes, I didn't suspect so.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > b) A user space application using sysfs to
> > read/write
> > > > >    SES pages?
> > > > 
> > > > Not an application so much as a user.  The idea
> > of sysfs is
> > > > to allow
> > > > users to get and set the information in addition
> > to
> > > > applications.
> > > 
> > > Exactly the same argument stands for a user-space
> > > application with a user-space library.
> > > 
> > > This is the classical case of where it is better to
> > > do this in user-space as opposed to the kernel.
> > > 
> > > The kernel provides capability to access the SES
> > > device.  The user space application and library
> > > provide interpretation and control.  Thus if the
> > > enclosure were upgraded, one doesn't need to
> > > upgrade their kernel in order to utilize the new
> > > capabilities of the SES device.  Plus upgrading
> > > a user-space application is a lot easier than
> > > the kernel (and no reboot necessary).
> > 
> > The implementation is modular, so it's remove and
> > insert ...
> 
> I guess the same could be said for STGT and SCST, right?

You mean both of their kernel pieces are modular?  That's correct.

quoted text
> LOL, no seriously, this is unnecessary kernel bloat,
> or rather at the wrong place (see below).
> 
> > 
> > > Consider another thing: vendors would really like
> > > unprecedented access to the SES device in the
> > enclosure
> > > so as your ses/enclosure code keeps state it would
> > > get out of sync when vendor user-space enclosure
> > > applications access (and modify) the SES device's
> > > pages.
> > 
> > The state model doesn't assume nothing else will alter
> > the state.
> 
> But it would be trivial exercise to show that an
> inconsistent state can be had by modifying pages
> of the SES device directly from userspace bypassing
> your implementation.

I don't think so ... if you actually look at the code, you'll see it
doesn't really have persistent state for the enclosure.

quoted text
> > > You can test this yourself: submit a patch
> > > that removes SES /dev/sgX support; advertise your
> > > ses/class solution and watch the fun.
> > > 
> > > > > At the moment SES device management is done
> > via
> > > > > an application (user-space) and a user-space
> > library
> > > > > used by the application and /dev/sgX to send
> > SCSI
> > > > > commands to the SES device.
> > > > 
> > > > I must have missed that when I was looking for
> > > > implementations; what's
> > > > the URL?
> > > 
> > > I'm not aware of any GPLed ones.  That doesn't
> > > necessarily mean that the best course of action is
> > > to bloat the kernel.  You can move your ses/enclosure
> > > stuff to a user space application library
> > > and thus start a GPLed one.
> > 
> > Certainly ... patches welcome.
> 
> I've non at the moment, plus I don't think you'd be
> the point of contact for a user-space SES library.
> Unless of course you've already started something up
> on sourceforge.
> 
> Really, such an effort already exists: it is called
> sg_ses(8).
> 
> > 
> > > > But, if we have non-scsi enclosures to integrate,
> > that
> > > > makes it harder
> > > > for a user application because it has to know all
> > the
> > > > implementations.
> > > 
> > > So does the kernel.  And as I pointed out above, it
> > > is a lot easier to upgrade a user-space application
> > and
> > > library than it is to upgrade a new kernel and having
> > > to reboot the computer to run the new kernel.
> > 
> > No, think again ... it's easy for SES based enclosures
> > because they have
> > a SCSI transport.  We have no transport for SGPIO based
> > enclosures nor
> > for any of the other more esoteric ones.
> 
> Yes, for which the transport layer, implements the
> scsi device node for the SES device.  It doesn't really
> matter if the SCSI commands sent to the SES device go
> over SGPIO or FC or SAS or Bluetooth or I2C, etc, the
> transport layer can implement that and present the
> /dev/sgX node.

But it does matter if the enclosure device doesn't speak SCSI.  SGPIO
isn't a SCSI protocol ... it's a general purpose serial bus protocol.
It's pretty simple and register based, but it might (or might not) be
accessible via a SCSI bridge.

quoted text
> Case in point: the protocol FW running on the ASIC
> provides this capability so really the LLDD would
> only see a the pure SCSI SES or processor device and
> register that with the kernel.  At which point no new
> kernel bloat is required.
> 
> Your code doesn't quite do that at the moment as it
> actually goes further in to read and present SES pages.
> Ideally it would simply provide capability for transport
> layers to register a SCSI device of type SES, or processor.

Yes, it provides a glue between the enclosure services and the SES
protocol.

quoted text
> Architecturally, the LLDD/transport layer would register
> the SGPIO device on one end with the SGPIO layer and on
> the other end as a SCSI SES/processpr device.  After that
> sg_ses(8) or sglib, fits the bill for user space applications.

That's possible, but none of these layers exist yet ... although I think
(assuming I can find a SGPIO enclosure) that SGPIO might be next.

quoted text
> > That's not to say it can't be done, but it does
> > mean that it can't be
> > completely userspace.
> 
> See previous paragraph.
> 
> > 
> > > > A sysfs framework on the other hand is a
> > universal known
> > > > thing for the
> > > > user applications.
> > > 
> > > So would a user-space ses library, a la libses.so.
> > > 
> > > > > One could have a very good argument to not
> > bloat
> > > > > the kernel with this but leave it to a
> > user-space
> > > > > application and a library to do all this and
> > > > > communicate with the SES device via the
> > kernel's
> > > > /dev/sgX.
> > > > 
> > > > The same thing goes for other esoteric SCSI
> > infrastructure
> > > > pieces like
> > > > cd changers.  On the whole, given that ATA is
> > asking for
> > > > enclosure
> > > > management in kernel, it makes sense to
> > consolidate the
> > > > infrastructure
> > > > and a ses ULD is a very good test bed.
> > > 
> > > What is wrong with exporting the SES device as
> > /dev/sgX
> > > and having a user-space application and library to
> > > do all this?
> > 
> > How do you transport the enclosure commands over /dev/sgX? 
> > Only SES has
> > SCSI command encapsulation ... the rest won't even be
> > SCSI targets ...
> 
> What is the protocol of those "rest" that you talk about?

At the moment it looks to be SES, SGPIO and AHCI.

quoted text
> At any rate, this capability lies in the kernel providing
> a _device node_ -- not quite what your patch is doing.

So your idea is to provide a separate interface per enclosure in kernel?
Sure ... like I said patches welcome.  I just did a common in-kernel
interface that abstracts common enclosure services.

James


--
unsubscribe notice
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/