Re: iSCSI: Out Of Sequence due to null sequence with multipleconnections.

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

That might interfere with ITT reuse.  Julo

Sandeep Joshi <sandeepj@research.bell-labs.com> on 03/04/2001 19:45:44

Please respond to Sandeep Joshi <sandeepj@research.bell-labs.com>

To:   Black_David@emc.com
cc:   dotis@sanlight.net, ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  Re: iSCSI: Out Of Sequence due to null sequence with
      multipleconnections.





There is probably more to this than meets the eye, in which
case do please let me know where I err..

Is it not possible to use the refTaskTag in task management
command to introduce "state" at the target ?

Specifically,
1) send task management command with immediate delivery(cmdSN=0).
2) if iSCSI target sees a non-existing refTaskTag,
   it uses that fact to create some "state" at the target.
   (NOTE: we dont know if the task had already completed ??)
3) When actual task arrives, it gets dropped since iSCSI sees
   that for that refTaskTag, state=must abort.

But there is still the question..
1) when do we delete that target "state" ?  there is no
   endCmdSN or refCmdSN.

-sandeep

Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>
> Let me apologize for unintentionally stepping on Doug
> in the meeting.  Due to the time squeeze, I neglected
> to ask for other issues at the end of the iSCSI discussion
> - sorry about that.
>
> I'm going to back off and try to take a high level view of
> this and see what sort of observations emerge.  When a SCSI
> task management command pops out of an iSCSI TCP connection
> at the target, there are four places that the SCSI operations
> it affects could be:
>
> (1) Executing in SCSI.
> (2) Queued to SCSI for execution, but not executing.
> (3) Queued in iSCSI waiting for command sequencing.
> (4) In-flight.
>
> (2) includes the "resource limitations between the
> sequencer and the target that may lead to a stall or
> a long term delay".
>
> (1) and (2) are the easy cases - the SCSI implementation
> must apply the task management command to executing tasks,
> and should perform the obvious "peephole optimization" to
> the commands queued for execution (i.e., if they're to be
> aborted, abort them and send the response(s) without starting
> execution).  In essence, this models a command as crossing
> the boundary from iSCSI to SCSI the moment that iSCSI is
> prepared to give it to SCSI (i.e., any queue and related
> resource limitations are on SCSI's side of the line).
>
> (4) is hard.  One SCSI task management command generates one
> response.  That response can either be generated immediately
> (command arrives, is passed to SCSI, SCSI does its thing) or
> at the right point in the sequence (command arrives, is
> sequenced by iSCSI, passed to SCSI at the right point in the
> sequence, and SCSI does its thing), but NOT both.  As things
> currently stand, having a task management command apply to
> in-flight commands requires sending the task management
> command for ordered delivery - so if it's desired to have
> the task management command take immediate effect and also
> catch everything in flight, it's going to have to be sent
> twice.  I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of the task
> management command taking immediate effect but delaying the
> response until everything in flight that might be affected
> arrives, as I suspect the Initiator would like to know what
> happened sooner rather than later.
>
> (3) is "interesting".  The results of applying a SCSI task
> management command to a SCSI operation are known only to
> SCSI, and hence asking that a command stuck in the iSCSI
> sequencer be affected immediately by a task management
> command is asking that the task management command have
> the side effect of changing some of the commands it affects
> to immediate delivery so that it can immediately do its
> (SCSI) thing to them.  I wouldn't want to mandate this,
> nor would I want to prohibit it, BUT ... if the above
> discussion of in-flight commands is correct, I would
> observe that the application on the Initiator side
> can't tell the difference between commands that are in-flight
> vs. waiting for something in-flight on another connection,
> and hence is going to have to issue the task management
> command for ordered delivery if it wants to affect operations
> in either place (and issue a second copy if it wants
> immediate action).
>
> The upshot is that, aside from a longer discussion of this
> issue, I'm not sure anything needs to be changed.  Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------