Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0807241727320.12036@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:49:14 -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 12:34 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > 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 
> 
> Look, if you don't really understand what I'm doing, it's not really my
> job to educate you.  The sg_table discussions are on marc.info, mainly
> on the SCSI lists; just look for 'sg chaining' in the header (need to
> use google site ... marc's search is bad).
> 
> You can complain if the code is impacting you ... but I believe I've
> optimised it so it isn't.  Your basic problem amounts to you not liking
> me doing something that has no impact on you ... I'm afraid that's what
> freedom leads to (shocking, I know).
> 
> James

Chaining of sg_tables is used for drivers with big sg tables --- and 
vmerge counting is used for drivers with small sg tables. So what do they 
have in common?

Summary, what I mean:

* in blk-merge.c, you have 85 lines, that is 16% of the size of the file, 
devoted to counting of hw_segments

* it is only used on two architectures, one already outdated (alpha), the 
other being discontinued (pa-risc). On all the other architectures, 
hw_segments == phys_segments

* it is prone to bugs and hard to maintain, because the same value must be 
calculated in blk-merge.c and in architectural iommu functions --- if the 
value differs, you create too long request, corrupt kernel memory and 
crash (happened on sparc64). Anyone changing blk-merge in the future will 
risk breaking something on the architectures that use BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY 
--- and because these architectures are so rare, the bug will go unnoticed 
for long time --- like in the case of sparc64.

* you are just talking how this code is important for performance without 
showing any single proof that it really is (temporarily disable 
hw_segments accounting by defining BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY 0 and get the 
numbers).

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