All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: martin.petersen@oracle.com, mst@redhat.com,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: virtio_blk: fix defaults for max_hw_sectors and max_segment_size
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:00:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141126230055.GA32363@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54764BD1.2070804@kernel.dk>

On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at  4:53pm -0500,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:

> On 11/26/2014 02:51 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > 
> > But while you're here, I wouldn't mind getting your take on virtio-blk
> > setting max_hw_sectors to -1U.
> > 
> > As I said in my original reply to mst: it only makes sense to set a
> > really high initial upper bound like that in a driver if that driver
> > goes on to stack an underlying device's limit.
> 
> -1U should just work, IMHO, there's no reason we should need to cap it
> at some synthetic value.  That said, it seems it should be one of
> those parameters that should be negotiated up and set appropriately. 

I'm saying set it to the underlying device's value for max_hw_sectors --
not some synthetic value.  So I think we're saying the same thing.

But it isn't immediately clear (to me) how that benefits virtio-blk
users (obviously they are getting by today).  So until that is pinned
down I imagine nobody will care to extend the virtio-blk protocol to
allow stacking max_hw_sectors and max_sectors up.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: martin.petersen@oracle.com, mst@redhat.com,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] virtio_blk: fix defaults for max_hw_sectors and max_segment_size
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:00:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141126230055.GA32363@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54764BD1.2070804@kernel.dk>

On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at  4:53pm -0500,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:

> On 11/26/2014 02:51 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > 
> > But while you're here, I wouldn't mind getting your take on virtio-blk
> > setting max_hw_sectors to -1U.
> > 
> > As I said in my original reply to mst: it only makes sense to set a
> > really high initial upper bound like that in a driver if that driver
> > goes on to stack an underlying device's limit.
> 
> -1U should just work, IMHO, there's no reason we should need to cap it
> at some synthetic value.  That said, it seems it should be one of
> those parameters that should be negotiated up and set appropriately. 

I'm saying set it to the underlying device's value for max_hw_sectors --
not some synthetic value.  So I think we're saying the same thing.

But it isn't immediately clear (to me) how that benefits virtio-blk
users (obviously they are getting by today).  So until that is pinned
down I imagine nobody will care to extend the virtio-blk protocol to
allow stacking max_hw_sectors and max_sectors up.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-26 23:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-20 19:00 [PATCH] virtio_blk: fix defaults for max_hw_sectors and max_segment_size Mike Snitzer
2014-11-20 20:30 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-20 21:15   ` Mike Snitzer
2014-11-26  5:58     ` Rusty Russell
2014-11-26 14:10       ` Mike Snitzer
2014-11-21  1:59 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-11-21  2:11 ` [PATCH v2] " Mike Snitzer
2014-11-21  9:54 ` [PATCH] " Christoph Hellwig
2014-11-21  9:54   ` [Qemu-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2014-11-21 15:49   ` Mike Snitzer
2014-11-21 15:49     ` [Qemu-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2014-11-26 19:48     ` Jens Axboe
2014-11-26 19:48       ` [Qemu-devel] " Jens Axboe
2014-11-26 20:51       ` Mike Snitzer
2014-11-26 20:51         ` [Qemu-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2014-11-26 20:54         ` Jens Axboe
2014-11-26 20:54           ` [Qemu-devel] " Jens Axboe
2014-11-26 21:51           ` Mike Snitzer
2014-11-26 21:51             ` [Qemu-devel] " Mike Snitzer
2014-11-26 21:51             ` Mike Snitzer
2014-11-26 21:53             ` Jens Axboe
2014-11-26 21:53               ` [Qemu-devel] " Jens Axboe
2014-11-26 23:00               ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2014-11-26 23:00                 ` Mike Snitzer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141126230055.GA32363@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.