[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0807241232040.9412@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:34:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq_segments
about VMERGE
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 11:07 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > So try to #define BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY 0 for Pa-Risc and tell us what
> > performance degradation do you see (and what driver do you use and what is
> > the I/O pattern).
> >
> > If you show something specific, we can consider that --- but you haven't
> > yet told us anything, except generic talk.
>
> You keep ignoring inconvenient facts. For about the third time:
>
> I run a test bed for sg_tables (large chaining of requests). This runs
> on parisc using virtual merging (has to because the final physical table
> size can't go over the sg list of the SCSI card). If I turn off virtual
> merging I can no longer test sg_tables in vanilla kernels.
>
> James
What sg_tables test do you mean? What does the test do? Why couldn't you
run the test if BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY is 0? Normal I/O obviously can work
with BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY 0, the kernel will just send more smaller
requests.
Mikulas
--
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