[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080715113238U.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:40:45 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: mpatocka@...hat.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, andi@...stfloor.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [SUGGESTION]: drop virtual merge accounting in I/O requests
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:03:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, David Miller wrote:
>
> > From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> >> As you mentioned ESP driver, it declares .sg_tablesize = SG_ALL, so
> >> BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY has no effect on the operation of this driver. Any
> >> other driver where BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY does matter?
> >
> > When BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY is turned on, requests that would not
> > otherwise fit into the device's limits, can.
>
> Why would someone want to overshoot SG_ALL? ... and, shouldn't the
> constant be increased then --- instead of making buggy BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY
> expectations?
'buggy' is a wrong word. VMERGE works for some IOMMUs (though I think
that we need to fix it about max_segment_size).
--
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