This is fine but how will you deal with dynamic disks?
That's the diff I still have in my mail from you...
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 07:52:33PM +0300, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 19:48 +0300, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:41 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > > I talked to Jim and he and I had exactly the same comments. We love
> > > this minus the numbers you pull out of an orifice ;-)
> > >
> > > To be exact:
> > > > - sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth = 128;
> > > > - sc->sc_request_depth = 128;
> > > > - sc->sc_num_reply_frames = 63;
> > > > - sc->sc_reply_free_qdepth = 64;
> > > > + sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth = 8192;
> > > > + sc->sc_request_depth = 1024;
> > > > + sc->sc_num_reply_frames = 1151;
> > > > + sc->sc_reply_free_qdepth = 1152;
> > >
> > > Both choices are bad. This needs to come from the firmware and not made
> > > up as we do now. Jim's values are conservative, yours are probably ok
> > > for *your* chip but no telling about others. I think the port facts
> > > pages has these.
> > >
> > > I can go ahead and commit the rest. Agree?
> > >
> >
> > of course! calculation code above that should be used/fixed anyway.
>
> Hi,
>
> Calculation code is actually fine. openings was incorrect, resulting
> in the dead slow performance.
>
> With this diff i get ~130Mb/s write performace on the RAID1 w/ 15K RPM
> SAS drives, which is twice i got with the request value cranked up to
> the 1024.
>
> The idea is that "openings" are treated as an amount of possible
> outstanding requests in the scsi subsystem. mpii was using a value
> of total maximum number of devices you can actually attach, but
> that's far from the reality, which is the number of physical disks
> and volumes present.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
> Index: mpii.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/mpii.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.9
> diff -N -u -p -u -p mpii.c
> --- mpii.c 25 Feb 2010 02:05:41 -0000 1.9
> +++ mpii.c 1 Mar 2010 16:42:42 -0000
> @@ -1757,8 +1757,7 @@ uint32_t mpii_debug = 0
> */
> #define MPII_MAX_SGL (32)
>
> -#define MPII_MAX_REQUEST_CREDIT (500)
> -#define MPII_MAX_REPLY_POST_QDEPTH (128)
> +#define MPII_MAX_REQUEST_CREDIT (128)
>
> struct mpii_dmamem {
> bus_dmamap_t mdm_map;
> @@ -2375,7 +2374,8 @@ mpii_attach(struct mpii_softc *sc)
> sc->sc_link.adapter_softc = sc;
> sc->sc_link.adapter_target = sc->sc_target;
> sc->sc_link.adapter_buswidth = sc->sc_max_devices;
> - sc->sc_link.openings = sc->sc_request_depth / sc->sc_max_devices;
> + sc->sc_link.openings = sc->sc_request_depth / (sc->sc_pd_count +
> + sc->sc_vd_count);
>
> bzero(&saa, sizeof(saa));
> saa.saa_sc_link = &sc->sc_link;
> @@ -3037,23 +3037,11 @@ mpii_iocfacts(struct mpii_softc *sc)
> sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth = sc->sc_request_depth +
> sc->sc_num_reply_frames + 1;
>
> - if (sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth > MPII_MAX_REPLY_POST_QDEPTH)
> - sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth = MPII_MAX_REPLY_POST_QDEPTH;
> -
> if (sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth >
> ifp.max_reply_descriptor_post_queue_depth)
> sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth =
> ifp.max_reply_descriptor_post_queue_depth;
>
> - /* XXX JPG temporary override of calculated values.
> - * need to think this through as the specs
> - * and other existing drivers contradict
> - */
> - sc->sc_reply_post_qdepth = 128;
> - sc->sc_request_depth = 128;
> - sc->sc_num_reply_frames = 63;
> - sc->sc_reply_free_qdepth = 64;
> -
> DNPRINTF(MPII_D_MISC, "%s: sc_request_depth: %d "
> "sc_num_reply_frames: %d sc_reply_free_qdepth: %d "
> "sc_reply_post_qdepth: %d\n", DEVNAME(sc), sc->sc_request_depth,
