From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: md question re: max_hw_sectors_kb Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 14:40:15 +1000 Message-ID: <20110506144015.3b8af3d0@notabene.brown> References: <4DC0639E.1070707@sgi.com> <20110506142434.11afff3e@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110506142434.11afff3e@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Reed Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Higdon , Hannes Reinecke List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, 6 May 2011 14:24:34 +1000 NeilBrown wrote: > On Tue, 03 May 2011 15:20:46 -0500 Michael Reed wrote: > > > Resending to linux-raid. > > > > > > Hi Neil, > > > > My name is Mike Reed. I work at SGI. I've been looking at a performance > > issue with md writes and have tracked it down to the md device not having > > a high enough initial max_hw_sectors_kb setting. > > > > There is code in blk_queue_make_request() which lowers the default value > > from INT_MAX to BLK_SAFE_MAX_SECTORS, which is 255. This is generally > > lower than all the underlying devices with which I use md. > > > > As md appears to be a stacking driver, i.e., it calls disk_stack_limits() > > for each member of a volume, it would seem reasonable for md to use the, > > INT_MAX setting for max_hw_sectors_kb instead of BLK_SAFE_MAX_SECTORS. > > > > I have tried this, and have observed that md correctly limits the md device's > > max_sectors_kb to the value of the underlying devices in my mirror volume. > > > > Is this the correct way to address this issue? > > > > Applies to linux-2.6.39-rc4. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Reed > > > > > > --- drivers/md/md.c 2011-04-18 21:26:00.000000000 -0700 > > +++ drivers/md/md.c.new 2011-04-21 15:53:11.452536201 -0700 > > @@ -4328,6 +4328,7 @@ static int md_alloc(dev_t dev, char *nam > > mddev->queue->queuedata = mddev; > > > > blk_queue_make_request(mddev->queue, md_make_request); > > + blk_queue_max_sectors(mddev->queue, INT_MAX); > > > > disk = alloc_disk(1 << shift); > > if (!disk) { > > > > Hi Mike, > sorry for not responding to this earlier - it seemed to keep falling through > cracks for some reason :-( > > Yes, I completely agree with your analysis and think you patch is correct and > useful. > I will queue it up for the next merge window. > > thanks, > NeilBrown ...except of course that it should be blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(......) ^^ because blk_queue_max_sectors was renamed back in 2.6.34 :-) NeilBrown