Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:12:55 +1100 | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: [patch for playing] 2.5.65 patch to support > 256 disks |
| |
Jens Axboe wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 25 2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >>Nice Jens. Very good in theory but I haven't looked at the >>code too much yet. >> >>Would it be possible to have all queues allocate out of >>the one global pool of free requests. This way you could >>have a big minimum (say 128) and a big maximum >>(say min(Mbytes, spindles). >> > >Well not really, as far as I can see we _need_ a pool per queue. Imagine >a bio handed to raid, needs to be split to 6 different queues. But our >minimum is 4, deadlock possibility. It could probably be made to work, >however I greatly prefer a per-queue reserve. > OK yeah you are right there. In light of your comment below I'm happy with that. I was mostly worried about queues being restricted to a small maximum.
> > >>This way memory usage is decoupled from the number of >>queues, and busy spindles could make use of more >>available free requests. >> >>Oh and the max value can easily be runtime tunable, right? >> > >Sure. However, they don't really mean _anything_. Max is just some >random number to prevent one queue going nuts, and could be completely >removed if the vm works perfectly. Beyond some limit there's little >benefit to doing that, though. But MAX could be runtime tunable. Min is >basically just to make sure we don't kill ourselves, I don't see any >point in making that runtime tunable. It's not really a tunable. > OK thats good then. I would like to see max removed, however perhaps the VM isn't up to that yet. I'll be testing this when your code solidifies!
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |