[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081029083713.GE6364@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:37:13 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: jens.axboe@...cle.com, jeremy@...p.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: replace BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY with
BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE
* FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:00 +0100
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >Pretty much baffles me as well, xen should just need to do
> > > >
> > > >#define BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(vec1, vec2) 0
> > > >
> > >
> > > It needs to be a runtime switch, since we only want to do this when
> > > actually running under Xen. Also, its possible that the two pages might
> > > actually be physically contiguous, so they could be merged anyway.
> >
> > Alright, then add a xen_biovec_phys_mergeable(vec1, vec2) in the xen
> > code that actually checks this for real. You can add your switch there
> > as well. Then put the BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE() in the xen arch includes,
> > done.
> >
> > What Tomo is saying is that this has nothing to do with virtual merging,
> > and he's right.
>
> Yeah, overriding BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE perfectly works for Xen. And it
> is not related with BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY at all.
>
> Ingo, please put this patch into your tree:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122482703716620&w=2
does it have any dependency on:
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] bio: define __BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE
?
Ingo
--
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