[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141126230055.GA32363@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:00:55 -0500
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: martin.petersen@...cle.com, mst@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: virtio_blk: fix defaults for max_hw_sectors and max_segment_size
On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 4:53pm -0500,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> On 11/26/2014 02:51 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >
> > But while you're here, I wouldn't mind getting your take on virtio-blk
> > setting max_hw_sectors to -1U.
> >
> > As I said in my original reply to mst: it only makes sense to set a
> > really high initial upper bound like that in a driver if that driver
> > goes on to stack an underlying device's limit.
>
> -1U should just work, IMHO, there's no reason we should need to cap it
> at some synthetic value. That said, it seems it should be one of
> those parameters that should be negotiated up and set appropriately.
I'm saying set it to the underlying device's value for max_hw_sectors --
not some synthetic value. So I think we're saying the same thing.
But it isn't immediately clear (to me) how that benefits virtio-blk
users (obviously they are getting by today). So until that is pinned
down I imagine nobody will care to extend the virtio-blk protocol to
allow stacking max_hw_sectors and max_sectors up.
--
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