SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: Avoiding deadlock in iSCSI



    
    
    Where would you suggest it should be done without violating layering
    constraints?
    
    Julo
    
    Peter Johansson <PJohansson@ACM.org> on 12/09/2000 19:29:15
    
    Please respond to Peter Johansson <PJohansson@ACM.org>
    
    To:   IP Storage <IPS@ece.cmu.edu>
    cc:    (bcc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM)
    Subject:  RE: Avoiding deadlock in iSCSI
    
    
    
    
    At 07:25 AM 9/12/00, Stephen Byan wrote:
    
    >I think this is a T10 bug, and iSCSI should defer to T10 to fix it.
    
    The "this" Stephen refers to, summarized below, is not a T10 bug.
    
    >1) Initiator sends command 1 (ORDERED attribute)
    >2) Initiator sends command 2 (ORDERED attribute)
    >3) Initiator sends command 3 (ORDERED attributge)
    >4) Target reads command 1
    >5) Target reads command 2
    >6) Target returns queue full for command 2
    >7) Command 1 completes
    >8) Target reads command 3
    >9) Target executes command 3
    >
    >We have just violated the ordering constraints of the application by doing
    >command 3 before command 2.
    
    The malfunction is a property of the interaction of the transport protocol
    (T10 terminology) with SAM. In the case of iSCSI, it has to be designed so
    that no new commands can be accepted after the QUEUE FULL condition until
    the target has confirmed knowledge that the initiator is aware of the
    error. That is, the ordered pipeline of commands between the two endpoints
    must be resynchronized before work may resume.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Peter Johansson
    
    Congruent Software, Inc.
    98 Colorado Avenue
    Berkeley, CA  94707
    
    (510) 527-3926
    (510) 527-3856 FAX
    
    PJohansson@ACM.org
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:18 2001
6315 messages in chronological order