[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0903051325450.2618@vixen.sonytel.be>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:45:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jim Paris <jim@...n.com>,
Vivien Chappelier <vivien.chappelier@...e.fr>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@...sony.com>,
Linux/PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Cell Broadband Engine OSS Development
<cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] ps3/block: Add ps3vram-ng driver for accessing video
RAM as block device
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 04 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > Below is the rewrite of the PS3 Video RAM Storage Driver as a plain block
> > > > device, as requested by Arnd Bergmann.
> > > I'd rewrite this as a ->make_request_fn handler instead. Then you can
> > > get rid of the kernel thread. IOW, change
> > >
> > > queue = blk_init_queue(ps3vram_request, &priv->lock);
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > queue = blk_alloc_queue(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > blk_queue_make_request(queue, ps3vram_make_request);
> >
> > Thanks, I didn't know that part...
> >
> > > Add error handling of course, and call blk_queue_max_*() to set your
> > > limits for this device.
> >
> > I took out the blk_queue_max_*() calls (compared to ps3disk.c), as
> > none of the limits apply, and the defaults are fine.
> >
> > Is that OK, or is it better to make it explicit?
>
> I think it's always good to make it explicit. Plus for this case you
> definitely need it, as blk_init_queue() wont do it for you anymore.
blk_queue_make_request() does it for me, too:
void blk_queue_make_request(struct request_queue *q, make_request_fn *mfn)
{
...
blk_queue_max_phys_segments(q, MAX_PHYS_SEGMENTS);
blk_queue_max_hw_segments(q, MAX_HW_SEGMENTS);
...
blk_queue_max_segment_size(q, MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE);
...
blk_queue_max_sectors(q, SAFE_MAX_SECTORS);
...
}
struct request_queue *
blk_init_queue_node(request_fn_proc *rfn, spinlock_t *lock, int node_id)
{
...
blk_queue_max_segment_size(q, MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE);
blk_queue_max_hw_segments(q, MAX_HW_SEGMENTS);
blk_queue_max_phys_segments(q, MAX_PHYS_SEGMENTS);
...
}
> > > Then add a ps3vram_make_request() ala:
> >
> > > static void ps3vram_do_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> > > {
> > > }
> > >
> > > I just typed it here, so if it doesn't compile you get to keep the
> > > pieces :-)
> >
> > OK, I'll give it a try...
> >
> > BTW, does this mean the `simple' way, which I used based on LDD3, is
> > deprecated?
>
> Depends.. It's obviously not a very effective approach, since you punt
> to a thread for each request. But if you need the IO scheduler helping
> you with merging and sorting (for a rotational device), it still has
> some merit. For this particular case, the ->make_request_fn approach is
> much better.
Without the thread, performance indeed increased.
But then I noticed ps3vram_make_request() may be called concurrently, so I had
to add a mutex to avoid data corruption. This slows the driver down, and in the
end, the version with a thread turns out to be ca. 1% faster. The version
without a thread is about 50 lines less code, though.
With kind regards,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect
Sony Techsoft Centre Europe
The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium
Phone: +32 (0)2 700 8453
Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622
E-mail: Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com
Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/
A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V.
VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels
Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010
--
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