From: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
To: Giridhar Malavali <giridhar.malavali@qlogic.com>
Cc: Michael Reed <mdr@sgi.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
LinuxSCSI <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com>,
"vasu.dev@intel.com" <vasu.dev@intel.com>
Subject: Re: qla2xxx: Conditionally disable automatic queue full tracking
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:23:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC3A21F.8070705@cs.wisc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ABA38BF9-3910-45E9-8C2B-C860FD862D59@qlogic.com>
On 09/29/2009 08:34 PM, Giridhar Malavali wrote:
> 3) From your previous mail, I understand that you don't require a
> combined limit per target. Say the total queue depth for all LUN's on a
> particular target should not exceed some threshold.
>
James Smart had done this patch
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=121070114018354&w=2
where it sets the starget->can_queue based on info we get from vendors.
The patch did not get merged. JamesB does not want the
starget->can_queue to be static, and wants code like the queue full
tracking code which dynamically ramps the device queue depth up and down.
I am not sure if JamesB meant that he wants to ramp down the
starget->can_queue based on getting a QEUEU_FULL though. I thought he
just meant he wants it to be dynamic. If I am right, then I think we
could use JamesS's patch to set an initial starget->can_queue and add
another field for a max value. Then we could add some code that ramps
down/up based on something like command completion time or throughput or
some other value.
If JamesS did mean that he wanted to ramp down the starget->can_queue
based on QUEUE_FULLs then JamesS and JamesB do not agree on that and we
are stuck.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-30 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-23 23:59 qla2xxx: Conditionally disable automatic queue full tracking Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-24 14:42 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-24 17:05 ` Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-24 19:15 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-24 20:55 ` Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-24 21:02 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-30 1:34 ` Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-30 13:08 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-30 13:43 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-30 18:23 ` Mike Christie [this message]
2009-10-02 0:19 ` Michael Reed
2009-10-02 17:17 ` James Smart
2009-10-06 17:17 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-24 19:49 ` Mike Christie
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=4AC3A21F.8070705@cs.wisc.edu \
--to=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com \
--cc=giridhar.malavali@qlogic.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdr@sgi.com \
--cc=vasu.dev@intel.com \
/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.