[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0806221025220.3610-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
AntonioLin <antonio.lin@...ormicro.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@....com>
Subject: Re: Scatter-gather list constraints
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >> - Is it performance critical?
> >
> > For people using wireless USB drives, yes.
>
> But only if there is a lot of 512 byte block IO? The only case I can think
> of right now would be XFS log IO and perhaps some O_DIRECT/raw device
> accesses.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. There probably will not be a lot
of 512-byte block I/O -- not in the workloads I'm acquainted with. But
there will be some.
It isn't performance-critical, in the sense that slowing down the odd
512-byte block transfers won't hurt performance much. But it is
critical in the sense that the transfers must work properly when they
do occur.
> If it's only an relative oddball just copying is fine imho.
You mean, have the USB stack allocate bounce buffers and copy the data
between the S-G buffers (which may be in high memory) and the bounce
buffers? We're talking about a potentially fairly large amount of
data, say up to 100 KB. Is that really easier than splitting up an I/O
request?
Alan Stern
--
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