[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 13/16] Make generic_make_request handle arbitrarily large bios
- From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, yehuda hq newdream net, dm-devel redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, tj kernel org, linux-bcache vger kernel org, mpatocka redhat com, vgoyal redhat com, bharrosh panasas com, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, sage newdream net, agk redhat com, drbd-dev lists linbit com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 13/16] Make generic_make_request handle arbitrarily large bios
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 23:58:52 +0100
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:25:36PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> But this approach becomes unwieldy and eventually breaks down with
> stacked devices and devices with dynamic limits, and it adds a lot of
> complexity. If the block layer could split bios as needed, we could
Complexity - yes - but if people didn't observe a genuine benefit, why
did they go to the trouble of writing this and getting it included?
> eliminate a lot of complexity elsewhere - particularly in stacked
> drivers.
> Code that creates bios can then create whatever size bios are
> convenient, and more importantly stacked drivers don't have to deal with
> both their own bio size limitations and the limitations of the
> (potentially multiple) devices underneath them.
A theoretical argument. Perhaps it's the right assessment of this
issue. Perhaps it's not. Or perhaps it depends on the use-case.
I made a theoretical argument from a different point of view in my last email.
I think a body of *empirical* evidence should provide the justification
for this particular change, and until such evidence is forthcoming we
should keep the status quo.
Alasdair
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]