[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <B70A50D07063384EB9BCE3330D18414F02F5AF9D@nonameb.ptu.promise.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:25:11 -0800
From: "Ed Lin" <ed.lin@...mise.com>
To: "James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jeff" <jeff@...zik.org>,
"Promise_Linux" <Promise_Linux@...mise.com>
Subject: RE: [patch] scsi: use lock per host instead of per device forshared queue tag host
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@...elEye.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:00 AM
> To: Ed Lin
> Cc: linux-scsi; linux-kernel; jeff; Promise_Linux
> Subject: Re: [patch] scsi: use lock per host instead of per
> device forshared queue tag host
>
...
>
> This patch looks OK in principle.
>
> However, are you sure you're not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
> If the only reason you're doing this is because of the shared tag map,
> then probably that should be the area you protect with a per-tag-map
> lock. The net effect of what you've done will be to serialise all
> accesses to your storage devices. For a small number of devices, this
> probably won't matter than much, but for large numbers of devices,
> you're probably going to introduce artificial performance
> degredation in
> the I/O scheduler.
>
> James
>
Thanks.
Maybe this issue needs more discussion. I'll follow up.
Ed Lin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists