[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 14/16] Gut bio_add_page()
- From: Dave Chinner <david fromorbit com>
- To: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, dm-devel redhat com, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>, Dave Chinner <dchinner redhat com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin petersen oracle com>, linux-bcache vger kernel org, tytso google com, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com>, vgoyal redhat com, bharrosh panasas com, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, yehuda hq newdream net, drbd-dev lists linbit com, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>, sage newdream net
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 14/16] Gut bio_add_page()
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:08:15 +1000
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:02:08AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (cc'ing Martin K. Petersen, hi!)
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 06:38:39AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > With this patchset, you don't have to expose all the limits. You can
> > > expose just a few most useful limits to avoid bio split in the cases
> > > described above.
> >
> > Yeah, if that actually helps, sure. From what I read, dm is already
> > (ab)using merge_bvec_fn() like that anyway.
>
> i thought a bit more about it and the only thing which makes sense to
> me is exposing the stripe granularity for striped devices -
> ie. something which says "if you go across this boundary, the
> performance characteristics including latency might get affected",
> which should fit nicely with the rest of topology information.
> Martin, adding that shouldn't be difficult, right?
We already have the optimal IO size/alignment field in the topology.
Doesn't this fit what you want exactly?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david fromorbit com
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]