From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: "Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <mike.miller@hp.com>
Cc: axboe@suse.de, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: per device queues for cciss 2.6.0
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:22:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <404F5CDB.50900@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D4CFB69C345C394284E4B78B876C1CF105BC1EBB@cceexc23.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
> Yes, the controller has a single command buffer. It can hold 1024 outstanding commands.
Ok, great. Well then the carmel.c I sent you should be a good model --
carmel.c has per-device queues, and there are no starvation issues. The
code is contained within only a few LOC, in carm_push_q(), carm_pop_q(),
and carm_round_robin().
As an aside, you should probably make the call to cciss_round_robin()
conditional on the hardware's command buffer being at least 1/2 empty.
(or pick whatever low water mark you like)
The command buffer size, 1024, is quite nice. Given the same model as
carmel.c, I predict that blk_{start,stop}_queue will be called quite
infrequently -- that translates to _high_ performance on the cciss hardware.
Note the blk_{start,stop}_queue() were only recently fixed (grab latest
2.6.4-rc), so that may have introduced noise into whatever testing and
design you've done.
Now, per-queue locking, rather than per-HBA locking, definitely
introduces some additional complexity. I've got a good idea how to do
that, which involves the each queue's request function kicking a common
tasklet that queues commands to hardware. But there's a lot of deadlock
potentional if it's not done right, since you still need a common lock
for the HBA when submitting and completing hardware commands. So I
would be interested to see some evidence of actual SMP contention on the
per-HBA lock...
Regards,
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-10 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-10 13:30 per device queues for cciss 2.6.0 Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
2004-03-10 18:22 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-09 23:35 Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
2004-03-09 23:38 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-03-09 17:03 mikem
2004-03-09 22:22 ` Jeff Garzik
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=404F5CDB.50900@pobox.com \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mike.miller@hp.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