From: Chaitanya Tumuluri <chait@getafix.engr.sgi.com>
To: Brian Pomerantz <bapper@piratehaven.org>
Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>,
Eric Youngdale <eric@andante.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu, chait@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: PATCH: Enhance queueing/scsi-midlayer to handle kiobufs. [Re: Request splits]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:00:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200005191800.LAA56026@getafix.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 May 2000 09:17:18 PDT." <20000519091718.A4083@skull.piratehaven.org>
On Fri, 19 May 2000 09:17:18 PDT, Brian Pomerantz <bapper@piratehaven.org> wrote:
>
> < stuff snipped >
>
>was set to was 32 (8KB * 32 = 256KB). So the question I have is in
>the end when you do this pipelining, if you don't increase the atomic
>I/O size, will the device attached to the SCSI bus (or FC) still
>receive a single request or will it quickly see a bunch of smaller
>requests? My point is, from my experiments with this RAID device, you
>will run across situations where it is good to be able to make a
>single SCSI request be quite large in order to achieve better
>performance.
Agreed. And the patch I've suggested to this list does exactly that. It
allows you to issue large I/Os and the scsi midlayers will take care of
the device sg_tablesize limitations and split/re-issue the large I/O
into smaller sg_tablesize I/Os till the entire request is done.
So, the limitation (at least in the rawio path) would only be the HBA
sg_tablesize. You wouldn't even have to endure the wait in the request
queue, since these multiple sg_tablesize requests would be inserted at
the head of the queue and the dispatch function for the queue called
immediately (i.e. no _undue_ plugging/unplugging of the device queues).
Cheers,
-Chait.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-05-19 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <00c201bfc0d7$56664db0$4d0310ac@fairfax.datafocus.com>
[not found] ` <200005181955.MAA71492@getafix.engr.sgi.com>
2000-05-19 15:09 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-05-19 15:48 ` Brian Pomerantz
2000-05-19 15:55 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-05-19 16:17 ` Brian Pomerantz
2000-05-19 18:00 ` Chaitanya Tumuluri [this message]
2000-05-19 18:11 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-05-19 19:24 ` Brian Pomerantz
2000-05-19 20:43 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-05-20 9:10 ` Change direct I/O memory model? [Was Re: PATCH: Enhance queueing/scsi-midlayer to handle kiobufs] Mark Mokryn
2000-05-19 17:53 ` PATCH: Enhance queueing/scsi-midlayer to handle kiobufs. [Re: Request splits] Chaitanya Tumuluri
2000-05-19 17:38 ` Chaitanya Tumuluri
2000-05-23 21:58 ` Chaitanya Tumuluri
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200005191800.LAA56026@getafix.engr.sgi.com \
--to=chait@getafix.engr.sgi.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=bapper@piratehaven.org \
--cc=chait@sgi.com \
--cc=dgilbert@interlog.com \
--cc=eric@andante.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu \
--cc=sct@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox