Am 02.11.2014 um 23:27 schrieb Ezequiel Garcia: > Wow. Where did you run this and on top of what storage device?
nandsim, to make sure that the MTD is not our bottleneck. > I'm still interested in the memory footprint, UBI is already heavy enough. AFAICT blk-mq allocates one struct ubiblock_pdu per device. As all IO is done via scattergather the memory footprint should be good. But I'm sure Christoph can tell you the glory details. >>> I kind of like the negative diffstat, but the code doesn't look cleaner >>> or simpler. >>> >>> In other words, we need a good reason before we agree on making this >>> "zen style" driver more complex. >> >> After reading my patch again I think we could move ubiblock_read_to_sg() >> to kapi.c or io.c. It is rather generic and maybe we can tun more UBI users >> to >> scattergather such that less vmalloc()s are needed. >> >> This would also make the diffstat nicer... >> > > Yes, any additional effort to make the current patch any simpler would > be great. In its current form it seems rather cumbersome to me. Why cumbersome? It changes the way the driver works as blk-mq works differently. If you look at other blk-mq conversion patches you'll notice that they all change a lot. > If you can re-submit something better and put a more verbose commit log, > I'd really appreciate it :) First I wait for a review. I'm not sure whether I'm used blk-ml correctly. Thanks, //richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
