James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:45 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
Yes Tomo
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 11:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:45 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc
James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 11:27 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
LIBATA_MAX_PRD is the maximum number of DMA scatter/gather elements
permitted by the HBA's DMA engine, for a single ATA command.
Then it's the wrong parameter you're setting: phys_segments is what you
have going
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
Yes Tomo found it at ata_scsi_slave_config(). Attached below the way I
fixed it. Now
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:45 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
Yes Tomo found
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
Yes Tomo found it at ata_scsi_slave_config(). Attached below the way I
fixed it. Now it works with 127.
I think
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
One thing that I found is:
+#define scsi_resid(cmd) ((cmd)-sg_table-resid)
This doesn't work for some drivers (at least ipr) since they set
cmd-resid even with commands without data transfer.
James, Tomo.
the last accessor:
+#define
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:37:06 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
One thing that I found is:
+#define scsi_resid(cmd) ((cmd)-sg_table-resid)
This doesn't work
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:37:06 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
One thing that I found is:
+#define scsi_resid(cmd) ((cmd)-sg_table-resid
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:48:13 +0200
On Thu, May 17 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:48:13 +0200
On Thu, May 17 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, May 16 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:53 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
The 1-page thing isn't a restriction as such, it's just an optimization.
The scatterlist allocated is purely a kernel entity, so you could do 4
contig pages and larger ios that
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:49:37 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:48:13
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:49:37 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:48:13
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:49 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
These are regular fs (ext3) requests during bootup. The machine will not
boot. (Usually from the read ahead code)
Don't believe me look at the second patch Over Tomo's cleanup.
If I define SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS to 127 it will crash even
James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:49 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
These are regular fs (ext3) requests during bootup. The machine will not
boot. (Usually from the read ahead code)
Don't believe me look at the second patch Over Tomo's cleanup.
If I define SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS to
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:49 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
These are regular fs (ext3) requests during bootup. The machine
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:00:21 +0300
Yes Tomo found it at ata_scsi_slave_config(). Attached below the way I
fixed it. Now it works with 127.
I think that we can
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:49:37 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
There's actually a fourth option you haven't considered:
Roll all the required sglist definitions (request_bufflen,
request_buffer, use_sg and sglist_len) into the sgtable pools.
This is a grate Idea. Let me see if I understand what you mean.
On Wed, May 16 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
There's actually a fourth option you haven't considered:
Roll all the required sglist definitions (request_bufflen,
request_buffer, use_sg and sglist_len) into the sgtable pools.
This is a grate
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:53 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
The 1-page thing isn't a restriction as such, it's just an optimization.
The scatterlist allocated is purely a kernel entity, so you could do 4
contig pages and larger ios that way, if higher order allocations were
reliable.
But you are
On Wed, May 16 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:53 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
The 1-page thing isn't a restriction as such, it's just an optimization.
The scatterlist allocated is purely a kernel entity, so you could do 4
contig pages and larger ios that way, if higher
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:53:22 +0200
On Wed, May 16 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
There's actually a fourth option you haven't considered
On Thu, May 17 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:53:22 +0200
On Wed, May 16 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
There's
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 11:10 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
+#define scsi_resid(cmd) ((cmd)-resid)
I have defined resid in the past as a signed (32 bit)
integer following the CAM spec. The cases are:
- resid=0 : initiator's DMA engine got (or sent?) the
number of bytes it
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:54:32 +0300
James Bottomley wrote:
Actually, the first order of business is to use accessors on the command
pointers in the drivers to free them from the internal
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: FUJITA Tomonori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:53:22 +0900
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:48 +0300
+/* moved to scatterlist.h after chaining sg */
+#define sg_next(sg) ((sg) + 1)
+
+#define scsi_for_each_sg(cmd, nseg, i
Douglas Gilbert wrote:
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: FUJITA Tomonori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:53:22 +0900
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support
James Bottomley wrote:
I think you'll find that kzalloc comes directly out of a slab for this
size of allocation anyway ... you mean you want to see a dedicated pool
for this specific allocation?
Yes, As you said below so we can always send IO for forward progress
of freeing memory. My test
From: James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 15:01:37 -0500
Roll all the required sglist definitions (request_bufflen,
request_buffer, use_sg and sglist_len) into the sgtable pools.
We're getting very close
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:46:34 +0300
Roll all the required sglist definitions (request_bufflen,
request_buffer, use_sg and sglist_len) into the sgtable pools.
We're getting very close
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:46:34 +0300
Roll all the required sglist definitions (request_bufflen,
request_buffer, use_sg and sglist_len) into the sgtable pools.
We're
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 16:58:24 +0300
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
From: Boaz Harrosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add bidi support for block pc requests
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:46
James Bottomley wrote:
Actually, the first order of business is to use accessors on the command
pointers in the drivers to free them from the internal layout of the
structure (and where it is allocated).
Thanks! I totally second that. Let me look into my old patches and come
up with all the
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
Here is an updated version of the patch to add bidi support to block
pc requests. Bugs spotted by Benny were fixed.
This patch can be applied cleanly to the scsi-misc git tree and is on
the top of the following patch to add linked request support:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 21:53 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Before I get to my main concern here I have one comment. in
scsi_get_cmd_from_req()
there is a code path in which a scsi_cmnd is taken from special and is not
newly
allocated. It is best to move bidi allocation to
Here is an updated version of the patch to add bidi support to block
pc requests. Bugs spotted by Benny were fixed.
This patch can be applied cleanly to the scsi-misc git tree and is on
the top of the following patch to add linked request support:
39 matches
Mail list logo
