From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: casino_e@terra.es
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SII SATA request size limit
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:32:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030915153255.GB3412@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d95d2d93f8.d93f8d95d2@teleline.es>
On Mon, Sep 15 2003, CASINO_E wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm saying something stupid but, do you mean a special
> case for this controller in ide-dma.c:ide_build_dmatable()?
No that's not stupid at all. In 2.4 that would be how you do it, in 2.6
I was referring to the possibility of letting the drive queues that hang
off that controller be naturally limited. So you would do something ala
if (hwif->dma_boundary)
blk_queue_segment_boundary(drive->queue, 0x1fff);
and then no segment would be >= 8192 (or cross it, naturally) by
default.
> In this case, should not segment size and boundary be included in hwif
> so we can have a generic ide_build_dmatable() without dealing
> explicitly with special cases? We could initialize to the default for
> most controllers and set the values for the exceptions inside each
> particular driver.
Of course. But that is implementation detail, I was just worried that
someone would clamp on a nasty work around like 15 sectors (which would
in reality be just a 4kb request, nasty!) when you could get nice 128kb
requests with just the right segment limiting instead.
But basically I don't understand why the work-around was _ever_ in
sectors, if that is the bug in the hardware dma engine. Two
explanations: it's not really that bug and NetBSD is wrong, or the
person who did the work-around didn't know a better solution existed
(don't laugh, I wouldn't be surprised if something like that came down
from a vendor :)
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-15 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-15 15:24 CASINO_E
2003-09-15 15:32 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2003-09-15 16:00 ` Justin Cormack
2003-09-15 16:07 ` Jens Axboe
2003-09-15 22:19 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-09-18 17:43 Allen Martin
2003-09-15 16:33 CASINO_E
2003-09-14 0:57 Eduardo Casino
2003-09-13 16:43 Marcelo Penna Guerra
2003-09-12 23:07 Marcelo Penna Guerra
2003-09-12 23:16 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-12 21:00 Marcelo Penna Guerra
2003-09-12 22:28 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-12 20:55 Marcelo Penna Guerra
2003-09-13 10:56 ` Witold Krecicki
2003-09-12 20:48 Eduardo Casino
2003-09-15 8:47 ` Jens Axboe
2003-09-12 2:57 Marcelo Penna Guerra
2003-09-12 10:41 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-12 17:46 ` Witold Krecicki
2003-09-15 10:12 ` Adam Jones
2003-09-18 11:44 ` Witold Krecicki
2003-09-15 5:57 ` Catalin BOIE
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=20030915153255.GB3412@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=casino_e@terra.es \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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®