On 8/20/2012 6:59 PM, Scott Long wrote:
On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Jacob <m...@feral.com> wrote:
On 8/18/2012 2:36 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <50300540.9060...@feral.com>, Matthew Jacob writes:
[...] that there might be a measurable
difference for having to copy 4K (unaligned) than 1K (unaligned) to
kernel space for disposition.
Actually, as far as I'm aware, the 4K would be page-aligned by
default due to our malloc(3) implementation.
Wasn't there just a recent discussion about running 1.x binaries?
1.x binaries wouldn't notice and wouldn't be able to tell
if BUFSIZ is different in 10.x
I wasn't concerned about those specifically- I was just using this as an
example of leaving stuff alone.
If you're going to talk about making a change to defaults, the default
MAXPHYS and DLFTPHYS have been undersized for years now.
Indeed, but as I understand it, those require device driver changes ?
Ah, well 10.X would be an ideal time to find out!
This gets brought up from time to time, and I honestly thought that I swept
most of the problems up a few years ago. The mistake that I made in the mlx
driver that was recently corrected was evidence of a previous sweep.
If anyone wants to do another sweep, the thing to grep for is any drivers that
use MAXPHYS to size their i/o's. For the drivers that do that, you then have
to see if they can actually handle an arbitrary number of scatter-gather
elements. If they can't then they need to stop using MAXPHYS and start using a
constant that applies to the driver. My quick scan shows the following would
need to be investigated:
sys/dev/ata (legacy ata)
/sys/dev/isp
/sys/dev/mmcsd
/sys/dev/mvs
The only other problem is that struct but contains an element sized on MAXPHYS
for doing swapper I/O. Increasing MAXPHYS will increase this, and at one point
I think that Alan Cox might have wanted to find a better way to hold swap info.
Otherwise, increasing MAXPHYS causes no problems and is something that has run
in production for quite some time at places like Yahoo and Netflix.
I think I merely asked whether we were going to increase the defaults.
Are you suggesting we eliminate MAXPHYS for drivers entirely and just
base upon the drivers' native limits? The isp driver very specifically
uses MAXPHYS right now because it's a manifest constant. If we're
eliminating it, that's fine by my. What mechanism will be used to break
up transfers then?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
