From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH] speed up SATA Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:41:47 +0100 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040329124147.GC4984@mail.shareable.org> References: <4066156F.1000805@pobox.com> <20040328141014.GE24370@suse.de> <40670BD9.9020707@pobox.com> <20040328173508.GI24370@suse.de> <40670FDB.6080409@pobox.com> <20040328175436.GL24370@suse.de> <20040328180809.GB1087@mail.shareable.org> <20040328181502.GO24370@suse.de> <40671FAF.6080501@pobox.com> <20040329080943.GR24370@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:23443 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262909AbUC2MmO (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:42:14 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040329080943.GR24370@suse.de> List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Jeff Garzik , Nick Piggin , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton Jens Axboe wrote: > Could be used to limit tcq depth, not just request sizes solving two > problems at once. I already have a tiny bit of keeping this > accounting to do proper unplugs (right now it just looks at missing > requests from the pool, doesn't work on tcq). Does it make sense to allow different numbers of outstanding TCQ-reads and TCQ-writes? -- Jamie