From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: bytes/CDB of SCSI pass thru grossly limited maybe Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:45:06 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040829134505.GB10384@suse.de> References: <20040828143124.GB2518@suse.de> <1093715498.3682.4.camel@mulgrave> <20040828175547.GA8339@suse.de> <1093717255.3682.13.camel@mulgrave> <20040828184104.GA8460@suse.de> <1093742128.1670.2.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:31619 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267830AbUH2NpO (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:45:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1093742128.1670.2.camel@mulgrave> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Alan Stern , Pat LaVarre , SCSI development list On Sun, Aug 29 2004, James Bottomley wrote: > 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. Probably a bad recollection on my part. > > 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. Definitely. I'll toss something out. -- Jens Axboe