* [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024
@ 2012-08-17 14:50 Rob Evers
2012-08-17 15:19 ` Jeff Mahoney
2012-08-17 15:37 ` James Bottomley
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Rob Evers @ 2012-08-17 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kai.Makisara; +Cc: jeffm, lduncan, linux-scsi
Wondering if this would be an acceptable interim solution
to increasing the limit on the number of tape drives
while http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=134212042809524&w=2
gets sorted out.
Signed-off-by: Rob Evers <revers@redhat.com>
---
drivers/scsi/st.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/st.h b/drivers/scsi/st.h
index b548923..408d24f 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/st.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/st.h
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct st_modedef {
#define ST_MODE_SHIFT (7 - ST_NBR_MODE_BITS)
#define ST_MODE_MASK ((ST_NBR_MODES - 1) << ST_MODE_SHIFT)
-#define ST_MAX_TAPES 128
+#define ST_MAX_TAPES 1024
#define ST_MAX_TAPE_ENTRIES (ST_MAX_TAPES << (ST_NBR_MODE_BITS + 1))
/* The status related to each partition */
--
1.7.11.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024
2012-08-17 14:50 [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024 Rob Evers
@ 2012-08-17 15:19 ` Jeff Mahoney
2012-08-17 15:37 ` James Bottomley
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Mahoney @ 2012-08-17 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Evers; +Cc: Kai.Makisara, lduncan, linux-scsi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 8/17/12 10:50 AM, Rob Evers wrote:
> Wondering if this would be an acceptable interim solution to
> increasing the limit on the number of tape drives while
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=134212042809524&w=2 gets sorted
> out.
I have the updated patch that fixes the tape symlink problem. I'll
send it out in a few.
- -Jeff
> Signed-off-by: Rob Evers <revers@redhat.com> --- drivers/scsi/st.h
> | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/st.h b/drivers/scsi/st.h index
> b548923..408d24f 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/st.h +++
> b/drivers/scsi/st.h @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct st_modedef { #define
> ST_MODE_SHIFT (7 - ST_NBR_MODE_BITS) #define ST_MODE_MASK
> ((ST_NBR_MODES - 1) << ST_MODE_SHIFT)
>
> -#define ST_MAX_TAPES 128 +#define ST_MAX_TAPES 1024 #define
> ST_MAX_TAPE_ENTRIES (ST_MAX_TAPES << (ST_NBR_MODE_BITS + 1))
>
> /* The status related to each partition */
>
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=yseB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024
2012-08-17 14:50 [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024 Rob Evers
2012-08-17 15:19 ` Jeff Mahoney
@ 2012-08-17 15:37 ` James Bottomley
2012-08-17 20:57 ` Rob Evers
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2012-08-17 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Evers; +Cc: Kai.Makisara, jeffm, lduncan, linux-scsi
On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 10:50 -0400, Rob Evers wrote:
> Wondering if this would be an acceptable interim solution
> to increasing the limit on the number of tape drives
> while http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=134212042809524&w=2
> gets sorted out.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Evers <revers@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/st.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/st.h b/drivers/scsi/st.h
> index b548923..408d24f 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/st.h
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/st.h
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct st_modedef {
> #define ST_MODE_SHIFT (7 - ST_NBR_MODE_BITS)
> #define ST_MODE_MASK ((ST_NBR_MODES - 1) << ST_MODE_SHIFT)
>
> -#define ST_MAX_TAPES 128
> +#define ST_MAX_TAPES 1024
This is going to cause an order 2 GFP_ATOMIC allocation (on 64 bit
platforms) for the contiguous scsi_tapes array ... if large numbers of
tapes are genuinely required, shouldn't we fix this first and then
expand the number quite a bit more?
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024
2012-08-17 15:37 ` James Bottomley
@ 2012-08-17 20:57 ` Rob Evers
2012-08-17 21:35 ` Jeff Mahoney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Rob Evers @ 2012-08-17 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Bottomley; +Cc: Kai.Makisara, jeffm, lduncan, linux-scsi
On 08/17/2012 11:37 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 10:50 -0400, Rob Evers wrote:
>> Wondering if this would be an acceptable interim solution
>> to increasing the limit on the number of tape drives
>> while http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=134212042809524&w=2
>> gets sorted out.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Evers<revers@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/st.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/st.h b/drivers/scsi/st.h
>> index b548923..408d24f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/st.h
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/st.h
>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct st_modedef {
>> #define ST_MODE_SHIFT (7 - ST_NBR_MODE_BITS)
>> #define ST_MODE_MASK ((ST_NBR_MODES - 1)<< ST_MODE_SHIFT)
>>
>> -#define ST_MAX_TAPES 128
>> +#define ST_MAX_TAPES 1024
> This is going to cause an order 2 GFP_ATOMIC allocation (on 64 bit
> platforms) for the contiguous scsi_tapes array ... if large numbers of
> tapes are genuinely required, shouldn't we fix this first and then
> expand the number quite a bit more?
>
> James
>
Pre allocation of cdevs during init time needs addressing as well
to increase ST_MAX_TAPES quite a bit more, right?
Would leaving out Lee's sysfs updates out be ok, if ST_MAX_TAPES were
significantly increased?
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024
2012-08-17 20:57 ` Rob Evers
@ 2012-08-17 21:35 ` Jeff Mahoney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Mahoney @ 2012-08-17 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: revers; +Cc: James.Bottomley, Kai.Makisara, Lee Duncan, linux-scsi
The preallocation of cdevs is also addressed in my patch set. I'll send it out as soon as I'm at my notebook again.
-Jeff
--
Jeff Mahoney
(apologies for the top post -- from my mobile)
On Aug 17, 2012, at 4:58 PM, "Rob Evers <revers@redhat.com>" <revers@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 11:37 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 10:50 -0400, Rob Evers wrote:
>>> Wondering if this would be an acceptable interim solution
>>> to increasing the limit on the number of tape drives
>>> while http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=134212042809524&w=2
>>> gets sorted out.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Evers<revers@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/st.h | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/st.h b/drivers/scsi/st.h
>>> index b548923..408d24f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/st.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/st.h
>>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct st_modedef {
>>> #define ST_MODE_SHIFT (7 - ST_NBR_MODE_BITS)
>>> #define ST_MODE_MASK ((ST_NBR_MODES - 1)<< ST_MODE_SHIFT)
>>>
>>> -#define ST_MAX_TAPES 128
>>> +#define ST_MAX_TAPES 1024
>> This is going to cause an order 2 GFP_ATOMIC allocation (on 64 bit
>> platforms) for the contiguous scsi_tapes array ... if large numbers of
>> tapes are genuinely required, shouldn't we fix this first and then
>> expand the number quite a bit more?
>>
>> James
>>
>
> Pre allocation of cdevs during init time needs addressing as well
> to increase ST_MAX_TAPES quite a bit more, right?
>
> Would leaving out Lee's sysfs updates out be ok, if ST_MAX_TAPES were
> significantly increased?
>
> Rob
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-08-17 21:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-08-17 14:50 [PATCH RFC] increase ST_MAX_TAPES from 128 to 1024 Rob Evers
2012-08-17 15:19 ` Jeff Mahoney
2012-08-17 15:37 ` James Bottomley
2012-08-17 20:57 ` Rob Evers
2012-08-17 21:35 ` Jeff Mahoney
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.