[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703012150290.1768@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:53:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, mingo@...e.hu,
jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, arjan@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mbligh@...igh.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related
patches
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > You do not have to deal with TLB entries if you do buffered I/O.
>
> Where does the data come from?
>From the I/O controller and from the application.
> > We currently have problems with the kernel limits of 128 SG
> > entries but the fundamental issue is that we can only do 2 Meg of I/O in
> > one go given the default limits of the block layer. Typically the number
> > of hardware SG entrie is also limited. We never will be able to put a
>
> Seems like changing the default limits would be the easiest way to
> fix it then?
This would only be a temporary fix pushing the limits to the double or so?
> As far as hardware limits go, I don't think you need to scale that
> number linearly with the amount of memory you have, or even with the
> IO throughput. You should reach a point where your command overhead
> is amortised sufficiently, and the controller will be pipelining the
> commands.
Amortized? The controller still would have to hunt down the 4kb page
pieces that we have to feed him right now. Result: Huge scatter gather
lists that may themselves create issues with higher page order.
-
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