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 int
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().
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
Ye
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 requ
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 Tom
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 1
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 fou
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:
> >
> > +#defi
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> Jam
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
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]>
>>> Subje
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 i
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
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_SEGMEN
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
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 req
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 req
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]&g
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
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 su
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 wro
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:
> > >>
> > >&
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 hig
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
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.
> >>
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
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 byt
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
>>>
>>>>
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]>
>&g
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
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 suppor
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 Ma
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
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 th
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 req
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 16:58 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> 1. An sgtable is a single allocation with an sgtable header type
> >>at the begining and a veriable size array of struct scatterlist.
> >>something like:
> >>struct sgtable {
> >>struct sgtable_header {
> >>
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
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.
> >
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.
>
>
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
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 scsi_get_cmd_from_
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:
>
> http://marc.
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:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=117835587615642&
43 matches
Mail list logo
