Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking inblk_recalc_rq_segments about VMERGE

[David Miller]

From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:52:25 -0500

> Since we're using it successfully in parisc, I don't want the block code
> removed, but I don't see a reason to force other architectures to use
> it.
> 
> However, it has two use cases.  One is the legacy one of making rather
> dumb I/O cards perform better (which is the primary on on parisc), but
> there is a current one making huge transfers go through SCSI using using
> the sg_table code.  That latter is pretty vital to me since I have to
> keep the code working, but I don't really have any SCSI cards that can
> take advantage of it without virtual merging.  As a slight irony, IBM is
> trying to persuade me that a ppc would be better than a parisc for big
> endian I/O testing ... so I might just be seeing if I can make virtual
> merging work on power too.

All of this is gibberish, we've been over this a few times already
in this thread.

For a dumb I/O card, you advertise SG_ALL capabilities, the IOMMU
is going to merge things as it would have anyways, and you have
code in the driver to advance SG entries after each "dumb I/O".

There is zero value to the vmerge code, the real gains are being
realized already.
--
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/