From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: bytes/CDB of SCSI pass thru grossly limited maybe Date: 29 Aug 2004 09:34:10 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1093742128.1670.2.camel@mulgrave> References: <20040828143124.GB2518@suse.de> <1093715498.3682.4.camel@mulgrave> <20040828175547.GA8339@suse.de> <1093717255.3682.13.camel@mulgrave> <20040828184104.GA8460@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:20142 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267815AbUH2NeW (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:34:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20040828184104.GA8460@suse.de> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Alan Stern , Pat LaVarre , SCSI development list On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 14:41, Jens Axboe wrote: > Since SCSI doesn't build > 128 pages anyways, yes it doesn't make sense > to maintain a BIO_MAX_PAGES of 256. Didn't the SCSI part used to be 256 Agreed. > pages as well, I'm pretty sure that's what I put in when the > scsi_malloc() crud was dumped? I don't think so. I only looked at it about six months ago when SGI wanted better merging for qla. There was quite a bit of work to get the maximum to be 256. > bio has 1, 4, 16, 64, 128, 256 pools. 32 might make more sense, I seem > to recall mpages using that. I'll see if I can sneak a BIO_MAX_PAGES > reduction in, and spend that extra pool on 32 instead :) OK I'll follow whatever you do in SCSI. I think at least aligning all of our pool maximums is the correct thing to do. James