Re: [SUGGESTION]: drop virtual merge accounting in I/O requests

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:03:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> >> As you mentioned ESP driver, it declares .sg_tablesize = SG_ALL, so
> >> BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY has no effect on the operation of this driver. Any
> >> other driver where BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY does matter?
> >
> > When BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY is turned on, requests that would not
> > otherwise fit into the device's limits, can.
> 
> Why would someone want to overshoot SG_ALL? ... and, shouldn't the 
> constant be increased then --- instead of making buggy BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY 
> expectations?

'buggy' is a wrong word. VMERGE works for some IOMMUs (though I think
that we need to fix it about max_segment_size).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/