[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3e46295-4257-86ad-6994-f83b736c8f40@grimberg.me>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:35:12 -0700
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.ibm.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] IB/iser: set virt_boundary_mask in the scsi host
>> This ensures all proper DMA layer handling is taken care of by the
>> SCSI midlayer.
>
> Maybe not entirely related to this series, but it looks like the SCSI
> layer is changing the device global dma_set_max_seg_size() - at least
> in RDMA the dma device is being shared between many users, so we
> really don't want SCSI to make this value smaller.
>
> Can we do something about this?
srp seems to do the right thing:
target_host->max_segment_size = ib_dma_max_seg_size(ibdev);
But iser does not, which means that scsi limits it to:
BLK_MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE (64k)
I can send a fix to iser.
> Wondering about other values too, and the interaction with the new
> combining stuff in umem.c
The only other values AFAICT is the dma_boundary that rdma llds don't
set...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists