From: Mike Anderson <andmike@us.ibm.com>
To: Doug Maxey <dwm@enoyolf.org>
Cc: Ravi Anand <ravi.anand@qlogic.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
mikec linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: add support for shared tag maps
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:11:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060901201144.GA16135@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060901190423.806416@bebe.enoyolf.org>
Doug Maxey <dwm@enoyolf.org> wrote:
>
> Ravi,
>
> While working on a patch to add shared tags to qla4xxx was looking at
> the shost->can_queue settings, I see the value is set pretty high:
>
> qla4xxx_probe()
> ...
> host->can_queue = REQUEST_QUEUE_DEPTH + 128;
>
> where REQUEST_QUEUE_DEPTH works out to be 1024.
>
> My question:
> what is the relationship between the can_queue and the
> setting in
> qla4xxx_slave_configure()
> if (sdev->tagged_supported)
> scsi_activate_tcq(sdev, 32);
> else
> scsi_deactivate_tcq(sdev, 32);
>
> Does this imply that the firmware can ultimately track more requests
> than we can possibly stuff in it? Where do the other 1012 requests get
> queued, in the block layer?
Maybe I misreading your question. host->can_queue is the per host instance
(adapter) limit and scsi_activate_tcq will set the per dev (lun) limit.
host->can_queue being large is a good thing (if it is backed by real
resources). In theory can_queue should be scaled to support a hosts
${max_number_of_devices} * ${max_queue_depth}.
-andmike
--
Michael Anderson
andmike@us.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-01 20:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-01 6:31 [PATCH] block: add support for shared tag maps Ed Lin
2006-09-01 13:28 ` James Bottomley
2006-09-01 19:04 ` Doug Maxey
2006-09-01 20:11 ` Mike Anderson [this message]
2006-09-01 20:21 ` Ravi Anand
2006-09-01 20:52 ` James Bottomley
2006-09-18 18:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-09-18 19:10 ` James Bottomley
2006-09-18 19:25 ` Mike Christie
2006-09-19 2:20 ` Doug Ledford
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-08-31 8:55 Ed Lin
2006-08-31 9:00 ` Jens Axboe
2006-08-31 22:21 ` James Bottomley
2006-08-30 13:44 James Bottomley
2006-08-30 15:31 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-08-30 15:39 ` James Bottomley
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=20060901201144.GA16135@us.ibm.com \
--to=andmike@us.ibm.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=dwm@enoyolf.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ravi.anand@qlogic.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox