Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] drivers/block/mtip32xx: Adding header file and source for pci and block related operation

[Asai Thambi S P <asamymuthupa@micron.com>]

On 8/12/2011 2:04 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-08-11 20:52, Asai Thambi Samymuthu Pattrayasamy (asamymuthupa) [CONTRACTOR] wrote:
>> +       /*
>> +        * Semaphore used to lock out read/write commands during the
>> +        * execution of an internal command.
>> +        */
>> +       struct rw_semaphore internal_sem;
> 
> I hope you are not using that in a hot path...

As we don't use a queue, we can't inject the IOCTL/PIO commands at the
head of the queue like the ahci stack. So we have to wait on all NCQ
commands to complete while preventing more from being issued, issue our
'internal' command, wait for it to complete, and  then resume NCQ
submissions. Ideally, we'd like to do this without the overhead of
managing a queue for performance reasons. Do you have any suggestion for
this problem?

>> +int mtip_block_initialize(struct driver_data *dd)
>> +{
>> +       int rv = 0;
>> +       sector_t capacity;
>> +       unsigned int index = 0;
>> +       struct kobject *kobj;
>> +
>> +       /* Initialize the protocol layer. */
>> +       rv = mtip_hw_init(dd);
>> +       if (rv < 0) {
>> +               dev_err(&dd->pdev->dev,
>> +                       "Protocol layer initialization failed\n");
>> +               rv = -EINVAL;
>> +               goto protocol_init_error;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       /* Allocate the request queue. */
>> +       dd->queue = blk_alloc_queue(GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> It'd be nice for a high perf device like this to allocate the queue node
> local.

We thought not to mess with block layer housekeeping for request queue.
Will there be any performance gain if the driver allocates the request
queue? Is there any other benefit?


-- 
Regards,
Asai Thambi