Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262292AbTCYMCm>; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:02:42 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262284AbTCYMCm>; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:02:42 -0500
Received: from dial-ctb05113.webone.com.au ([210.9.245.113]:26383 "EHLO
	chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S262205AbTCYMCk>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:02:40 -0500
Message-ID: <3E8047C7.4070009@cyberone.com.au>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:12:55 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021226 Debian/1.2.1-9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>, dougg@torque.net, pbadari@us.ibm.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch for playing] 2.5.65 patch to support > 256 disks
References: <200303211056.04060.pbadari@us.ibm.com> <3E7C4251.4010406@torque.net> <20030322030419.1451f00b.akpm@digeo.com> <3E7C4D05.2030500@torque.net> <20030322040550.0b8baeec.akpm@digeo.com> <20030325105629.GS2371@suse.de> <3E803FDF.1070401@cyberone.com.au> <20030325120121.GV2371@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20030325120121.GV2371@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1791
Lines: 50



Jens Axboe wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 25 2003, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>
>>Nice Jens. Very good in theory but I haven't looked at the
>>code too much yet.
>>
>>Would it be possible to have all queues allocate out of
>>the one global pool of free requests. This way you could
>>have a big minimum (say 128) and a big maximum
>>(say min(Mbytes, spindles).
>>
>
>Well not really, as far as I can see we _need_ a pool per queue. Imagine
>a bio handed to raid, needs to be split to 6 different queues. But our
>minimum is 4, deadlock possibility. It could probably be made to work,
>however I greatly prefer a per-queue reserve.
>
OK yeah you are right there. In light of your comment below
I'm happy with that. I was mostly worried about queues being
restricted to a small maximum.

>
>
>>This way memory usage is decoupled from the number of
>>queues, and busy spindles could make use of more
>>available free requests.
>>
>>Oh and the max value can easily be runtime tunable, right?
>>
>
>Sure. However, they don't really mean _anything_. Max is just some
>random number to prevent one queue going nuts, and could be completely
>removed if the vm works perfectly. Beyond some limit there's little
>benefit to doing that, though. But MAX could be runtime tunable. Min is
>basically just to make sure we don't kill ourselves, I don't see any
>point in making that runtime tunable. It's not really a tunable.
>
OK thats good then. I would like to see max removed, however perhaps
the VM isn't up to that yet. I'll be testing this when your code
solidifies!

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/