From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] speed up SATA Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:06:06 -0500 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <406616EE.80301@pobox.com> 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 parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:20149 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261979AbUC1AGT (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:06:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <406611CA.3050804@pobox.com> List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton Jeff Garzik wrote: > 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. The block layer / scheduler guys should also think about a general (not SCSI specific) way to tune TCQ tag depth. That's IMO another policy decision. I'm about to add a raft of SATA-2 hardware, all of which are queued. The standard depth is 32, but one board supports a whopping depth of 256. Given past discussion on the topic, you probably don't want to queue 256 requests at a time to hardware :) But the sysadmin should be allowed to, if they wish... Jeff