All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md: Use new topology calls to indicate alignment and  I/O sizes
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:47:34 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq1ws7k60vt.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6579bc561e648e03ed4a739799e51d9e.squirrel@neil.brown.name> (NeilBrown's message of "Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:02:08 +1000 (EST)")

>>>>> "Neil" == NeilBrown  <neilb@suse.de> writes:

>> + blk_queue_io_opt(mddev->queue, chunk_size * (mddev->raid_disks >>
>>  	blk_queue_io_opt(mddev->1));

Neil>  ">> 1" is wrong.  A raid10 may have more than 2 copies for each
Neil>  block.

I recall pondering when I wrote that.  Never got around to revisiting
the issue.  Your RAID10 implementation is a bit hipper than most :)


Neil>  This calculation needs to be a bit more subtle and take about of
Neil>  the particular layout (near, offset, or far).

Why would layout interfere with preferred I/O size?

How about:

    if (conf->raid_disks % conf->copies)
	blk_queue_io_opt(mddev->queue, chunk_size * conf->raid_disks);
    else
	blk_queue_io_opt(mddev->queue, chunk_size *
			 (conf->raid_disks / conf->copies));

I.e.:

2 drives, 2 copies: a1 a1       optimal I/O = 1 * chunk_size

3 drives, 2 copies: a1 a1 a2
                    a2 a3 a3    optimal I/O = 3 * chunk_size

4 drives, 2 copies: a1 a1 a2 a2	optimal I/O = 2 * chunk_size

4 drives, 3 copies: a1 a1 a1 a2
                    a2 a2 a3 a3
                    a3 a4 a4 a4 optimal I/O = 4 * chunk_size

And so on.  Does that make sense?  I.e. we try to keep all drives
equally busy.


Neil> You seem to be treating raid4 like raid6 :-)

Whoops.  I always forget about raid4.  Fixed.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-10  6:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-09  4:31 [PATCH] md: Use new topology calls to indicate alignment and I/O sizes Martin K. Petersen
2009-06-09  5:02 ` NeilBrown
2009-06-10  6:47   ` Martin K. Petersen [this message]
2009-06-11 10:25     ` Neil Brown
2009-06-12  4:43       ` Martin K. Petersen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-06-23  4:54 Martin K. Petersen
2009-06-23 21:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-06-24  4:05   ` Neil Brown
2009-06-24  5:03     ` Martin K. Petersen
2009-06-24  6:22       ` Neil Brown
2009-06-24 17:07         ` Martin K. Petersen
2009-06-25  2:35           ` Neil Brown
2009-06-25  4:37             ` Martin K. Petersen
2009-06-25  6:16               ` Neil Brown
2009-06-25 16:24                 ` Martin K. Petersen

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=yq1ws7k60vt.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net \
    --to=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    /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.