[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1389640930.5567.441.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:22:10 -0800
From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...erainc.com>,
target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] target/rd: Add DIF protection into rd_execute_rw
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 13:53 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> >> I wander how we can skip sbc_dif_verify_xxxx if the transport already
> >> offloaded DIF verify.
> >> I think that the transport should signal the core layer that it is able
> >> to offload DIF (ADD/STRIP/PASS/VERIFY), in which case the core should
> >> turn off the backstore DIF verify emulation to sustain performance.
> > So IBLOCK + PSCSI backends will need to be a non interleaved protection
> > PASS for fast path operation, and backend protection emulation is
> > reserved for RAMDISK and perhaps a special FILEIO full emulation mode.
>
> But can't we avoid that if transport already verified? This will kill
> performance.
>
Sure, this will end up being configurable per backend if the fabric does
a CHECK + STRIP, or CHECK + PASS.
--nab
--
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