Are you getting my private emails?
Some of them bounce back to me.
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 08:16:02PM +0300, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 10:58 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > This is fine but how will you deal with dynamic disks?
> >
>
> for now there's no code to deal with them anyway.
> also there will never be as much as max_devices pieces attached,
> that's just a theoretical possibility.
>
> > That's the diff I still have in my mail from you...
> >
>
> replacing failed drives or what?
>
> > 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,
