From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Xmg8F-0005H7-GR for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 09:47:03 +0000 Message-ID: <1415353596.958.302.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: Block: Add blk-mq support From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Richard Weinberger Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:46:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <54573B72.1060600@nod.at> References: <1414933255-3795-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <20141103081821.GA5261@infradead.org> <54573B72.1060600@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: axboe@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com, computersforpeace@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 09:23 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 03.11.2014 um 09:18 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> +#define UBIBLOCK_SG_COUNT 64 > > > > > > Can you document why you choose this number? The default nr_request > > for the old code would be 128. > > Is 64 a problem? Beside of the fact that I forgot to set blk_queue_max_segments(). > I used this number because 128 seemed a bit high and my goal was to > keep the memory footprint small. > This is also why I've set tag_set.queue_depth to 64. The request was to document, so lets' document the choice. Artem.