Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 May 2005 08:37:57 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: reducing max segments expected to work? |
| |
On Wed, May 11 2005, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > Hello Jens et al, > > Is reducing the max number of segments in the block layer supposed to > work (as done in the patch below), or should i be sticking to mucking > with MAX_PHYS_SEGMENTS? I seem to get a kernel thatt cannot boot with > the below patch applied, and was wondering if you're aware of any > problems in this area. I'll probably post something more detailed > tomorrow after trying a few things. > > -ben > -- > "Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once." -- John Wheeler > > > diff -purN v2.6.12-rc4/include/linux/blkdev.h test-rc4/include/linux/blkdev.h > --- v2.6.12-rc4/include/linux/blkdev.h 2005-04-28 11:02:01.000000000 -0400 > +++ test-rc4/include/linux/blkdev.h 2005-05-11 17:06:10.000000000 -0400 > @@ -667,8 +667,8 @@ extern long blk_congestion_wait(int rw, > extern void blk_rq_bio_prep(request_queue_t *, struct request *, struct bio *); > extern int blkdev_issue_flush(struct block_device *, sector_t *); > > -#define MAX_PHYS_SEGMENTS 128 > -#define MAX_HW_SEGMENTS 128 > +#define MAX_PHYS_SEGMENTS 32 > +#define MAX_HW_SEGMENTS 32 > #define MAX_SECTORS 255
This doesn't really do what you would think it does - the defines should be called DEFAULT_PHYS_SEGMENTS etc, since they are just default values and do not denote any max-allowed-by-driver value.
But it is strange why your system wont boot after applying the above. What happens (and what kind of storage)?
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |