Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752566Ab2E2CQL (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2012 22:16:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:49423 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752212Ab2E2CQJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2012 22:16:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:15:58 +0900 From: Tejun Heo To: Dave Chinner Cc: Mikulas Patocka , Alasdair G Kergon , Kent Overstreet , Mike Snitzer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, yehuda@hq.newdream.net, vgoyal@redhat.com, bharrosh@panasas.com, sage@newdream.net, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, Dave Chinner , tytso@google.com, "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/16] Gut bio_add_page() Message-ID: <20120529021558.GG20954@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <1337977539-16977-15-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <20120525204651.GA24246@redhat.com> <20120525210944.GB14196@google.com> <20120525223937.GF5761@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <20120528202839.GA18537@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120528213839.GB18537@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120528230208.GA20954@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120529020815.GB5091@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120529020815.GB5091@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 26 Hello, On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:08:15PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > i thought a bit more about it and the only thing which makes sense to > > me is exposing the stripe granularity for striped devices - > > ie. something which says "if you go across this boundary, the > > performance characteristics including latency might get affected", > > which should fit nicely with the rest of topology information. > > Martin, adding that shouldn't be difficult, right? > > We already have the optimal IO size/alignment field in the topology. > Doesn't this fit what you want exactly? I don't know how xfs/ext4 is currently benefiting from merge_bvec_fn(), so I'm unsure. If the existing ones are enough, great. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/