From: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
To: Giridhar Malavali <giridhar.malavali@qlogic.com>
Cc: Michael Reed <mdr@sgi.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
LinuxSCSI <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com>,
"vasu.dev@intel.com" <vasu.dev@intel.com>
Subject: Re: qla2xxx: Conditionally disable automatic queue full tracking
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:23:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC3A21F.8070705@cs.wisc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ABA38BF9-3910-45E9-8C2B-C860FD862D59@qlogic.com>
On 09/29/2009 08:34 PM, Giridhar Malavali wrote:
> 3) From your previous mail, I understand that you don't require a
> combined limit per target. Say the total queue depth for all LUN's on a
> particular target should not exceed some threshold.
>
James Smart had done this patch
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=121070114018354&w=2
where it sets the starget->can_queue based on info we get from vendors.
The patch did not get merged. JamesB does not want the
starget->can_queue to be static, and wants code like the queue full
tracking code which dynamically ramps the device queue depth up and down.
I am not sure if JamesB meant that he wants to ramp down the
starget->can_queue based on getting a QEUEU_FULL though. I thought he
just meant he wants it to be dynamic. If I am right, then I think we
could use JamesS's patch to set an initial starget->can_queue and add
another field for a max value. Then we could add some code that ramps
down/up based on something like command completion time or throughput or
some other value.
If JamesS did mean that he wanted to ramp down the starget->can_queue
based on QUEUE_FULLs then JamesS and JamesB do not agree on that and we
are stuck.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-30 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-23 23:59 qla2xxx: Conditionally disable automatic queue full tracking Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-24 14:42 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-24 17:05 ` Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-24 19:15 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-24 20:55 ` Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-24 21:02 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-30 1:34 ` Giridhar Malavali
2009-09-30 13:08 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-30 13:43 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-30 18:23 ` Mike Christie [this message]
2009-10-02 0:19 ` Michael Reed
2009-10-02 17:17 ` James Smart
2009-10-06 17:17 ` Michael Reed
2009-09-24 19:49 ` Mike Christie
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=4AC3A21F.8070705@cs.wisc.edu \
--to=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com \
--cc=giridhar.malavali@qlogic.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdr@sgi.com \
--cc=vasu.dev@intel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).