- Original Message -
From: "Torben Mathiasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:59 AM
Subject: [PATCH] link-order of drivers outside drivers/scsi (i2o)
> Alan and others,
>
> The following patch
- Original Message -
From: "Linus Torvalds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Torben Mathiasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Eric Youngdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent:
2) low-level drivers (in same order as specified in hosts.c).
3) upper level drivers.
-Eric
- Original Message -
From: "Linus Torvalds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Torben Mathiasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Russell King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
) low-level drivers (in same order as specified in hosts.c).
3) upper level drivers.
-Eric
- Original Message -
From: "Linus Torvalds" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Torben Mathiasen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Russell King" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Eric Youngdale&q
quot;Torben Mathiasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Eric Youngdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: SCSI scanning
>
>
> On Mon, 18
My major comment is that you should use "SEND_DIAGNOSTIC" instead of a
hardcoded 0x1d.
-Eric
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18,
- Original Message -
From: "Linus Torvalds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Torben Mathiasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: SCSI scanning
>
>
> On
- Original Message -
From: "Linus Torvalds" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Torben Mathiasen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: SCSI scanning
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000,
orben Mathiasen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Eric Youngdale" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: SCSI scanning
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Torben Mathiasen wrote:
Thanks a lot. I've
> It is. Not unplugging the queue results in higher throughput
> when running a benchmark load, but seems to really harm
> system throughput (and cause stalls) in /real/ loads.
>
> This is most likely due to the fact that in most real life
> loads we have to write data and metadata all over the
Doug Gilbert and I ran across
some weirdness in the way the block device queues are plugged/unplugged.
It turned up with some benchmarks of the SCSI generics driver - with the new
queueing code, the generics driver is inserting requests into the same queue
that block device requests
It is. Not unplugging the queue results in higher throughput
when running a benchmark load, but seems to really harm
system throughput (and cause stalls) in /real/ loads.
This is most likely due to the fact that in most real life
loads we have to write data and metadata all over the place
e a kernel panic when I'm doing that. Not very nice..
>
> I've been fighting with this bug (and about 4 others that covered it up)
> for about a year now.
>
> I've spent the last week or so debugging this with Eric Youngdale.
> I think he has it fixed. I assume he'll put the patch in t
13 matches
Mail list logo
