From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH] speed up SATA Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:47:54 +1000 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <406612AA.1090406@yahoo.com.au> References: <4066021A.20308@pobox.com> <40661049.1050004@yahoo.com.au> <406611CA.3050804@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp016.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.174.113]:42594 "HELO smtp016.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261931AbUC0Xr6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:47:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <406611CA.3050804@pobox.com> List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton Jeff Garzik wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >> I think 32MB is too much. You incur latency and lose >> scheduling grainularity. I bet returns start diminishing >> pretty quickly after 1MB or so. > > > See my reply to Bart. > > Also, it is not the driver's responsibility to do anything but export > the hardware maximums. > > It's up to the sysadmin to choose a disk scheduling policy they like, > which implies that a _scheduler_, not each individual driver, should > place policy limitations on max_sectors. > Yeah I suppose you're right there. In practice it doesn't work that way though, does it?