public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>
To: Douglas Gilbert <dougg@torque.net>
Cc: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patch to split kmalloc in sd.c in 2.4.18+
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:37:53 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020323143753.A1011@devserv.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020322215809.A17173@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <3C9CB643.FC33C0AF@torque.net>

> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:07:15 -0500
> From: Douglas Gilbert <dougg@torque.net>

> > One problem I see when trying to use a box with 128 SCSI disks
> > is that sd_mod sometimes refuses to load. Earlier kernels simply
> > oopsed when it happened, but that is fixed in 2.4.18. The root
> > of the evil is the enormous array sd[] that sd_init allocates.
> > Alan suggested to split the allocation, which is what I did.

> So the only thing that is now contiguous is an array of
> pointers (to device state structures). [...]
> There have been no reported errors with this approach
> during the lk 2.4 series. A patched sg driver (together
> with Richard Gooch's sd-many patch) has been able to
> address over 300 (similated) disks without noticeable
> memory problems on a modestly-sized box.

The sg driver does not have any hd_struct arrays to allocate,
because it's not a disk.

> I believe that it was Eric's intention to implement the
> same solution in sd. The generic disk stuff and the
> partitions are a complicating factor.
> All those parallel arrays set up by sd_init (e.g.
> rscsi_disks[], sd_sizes[], sd_blocksizes[],
> sd_hardsizes[], sd_max_sectors[] and sd[] are a mess.

Excuse me, but I think you are trying to solve quite different
problem here. It looks that you target the code cleanliness first,
and the biggest allocation as an afterthought: "partitions
are a complicating factor". I target the biggest allocation,
which is the array of hd_struct (without loosing any code
cleanliness, if any remains in that rathole). Do you see the
difference?

Even after my patch broke the biggest allocation into 8 parts,
it is still the biggest! Every one of those other arrays is smaller
than an array of 256 hd_struct's. There is no way to switch to
arrays of pointers for hd_struct, because it is indexed with
minor in ll_rw_blk. Really, my change is independent of any
cleanups for other arrays (such as rscsi_disks[]).

It would be very nice if someone actually looked into detangling
those arrays in 2.5. Currently, Andreas Jaeger rewrote that part
without changing anything, only adding a bunch of butt-ugly macroses.
2.5 is where the better place for array squashing excercises is,
because I certainly would like to see this GONE:

        if (rscsi_disks)
                return 0;

        /* allocate memory */
#define init_mem_lth(x,n)       x = kmalloc((n) * sizeof(*x), GFP_ATOMIC)
#define zero_mem_lth(x,n)       memset(x, 0, (n) * sizeof(*x))

>[...]
> BTW. It is probably worth looking at the sd-many patch
> as it must have been faced with a similar problem.

It just occured to me after I sent the patch.

I would appreciate if someone applied and used my patch and told
me how it went. Array cleanups are parallel to the break-up of
the biggest allocation in sd (which must stay an array :-P).

-- Pete

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-03-23 19:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-03-23  2:58 Patch to split kmalloc in sd.c in 2.4.18+ Pete Zaitcev
2002-03-23 13:18 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-03-23 14:01   ` arjan
2002-03-23 17:07 ` Douglas Gilbert
2002-03-23 18:46   ` Eric Youngdale
2002-03-23 19:37   ` Pete Zaitcev [this message]
2002-03-23 20:03     ` Richard Gooch
2002-03-24  4:12     ` Douglas Gilbert
2002-03-24  5:16       ` Andre Hedrick
2002-03-24  5:38       ` Pete Zaitcev

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=20020323143753.A1011@devserv.devel.redhat.com \
    --to=zaitcev@redhat.com \
    --cc=dougg@torque.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /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