From: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,
Mark Peloquin <peloquin@us.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bio pool & scsi scatter gather pool usage
Date: 19 Apr 2002 10:27:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1019230042.10294.285.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E16yUE0-0006i7-00@the-village.bc.nu>
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 03:58, Alan Cox wrote:
> > But this gets you lowest common denominator sizes for the whole
> > volume, which is basically the buffer head approach, chop all I/O up
> > into a chunk size we know will always work. Any sort of nasty boundary
> > condition at one spot in a volume means the whole thing is crippled
> > down to that level. It then becomes a black magic art to configure a
> > volume which is not restricted to a small request size.
>
> Its still cheaper to merge bio chains than split them. The VM issues with
> splitting them are not nice at all since you may need to split a bio to
> write out a page and it may be the last page
> -
I am well aware of the problems of allocating more memory in some of
these places - been the bane of my life for the last couple of years
with XFS ;-)
It just feels so bad to have the ability to build a large request and
use one bio structure and know that 99.9% of the time the lower layers
can handle it in one chunk, but instead have to chop it into the lowest
common denominator pieces for the sake of the other 0.1%.
Just looking at how my disks ended up partitioned not many of them are
even on 4K boundaries, so any sort of concat built on them would
have a boundary case which required such a split - I think, still
working on my caffine intake this morning.
Steve
--
Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@sgi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-19 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-18 22:58 Mark Peloquin
2002-04-18 23:36 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-18 23:48 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-19 7:29 ` Stephen Lord
2002-04-19 8:08 ` Joe Thornber
2002-04-19 8:51 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-19 8:58 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-19 15:27 ` Steve Lord [this message]
2002-04-19 15:57 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-19 15:51 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-22 6:50 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-04-22 7:06 ` arjan
2002-04-22 7:54 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-04-24 10:20 ` Helge Hafting
2002-04-19 18:15 ` Oliver Xymoron
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-18 23:11 Douglas Gilbert
2002-04-18 18:23 Mark Peloquin
2002-04-18 18:57 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-19 15:44 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-04-25 19:43 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-04-25 19:56 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-25 19:59 ` David Mansfield
2002-04-18 13:58 Mark Peloquin
2002-04-18 16:17 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-18 17:35 ` Andrew Morton
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=1019230042.10294.285.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com \
--to=lord@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peloquin@us.ibm.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®