Martin,
> Could you please explain why you think Don's patch is wrong? User
> settings being discarded because of a BLKRRPART ioctl violates the
> principle of least surprise. With Don's patch, that won't happen any
> more. If hardware limits change, whether they increase or decrease, the
> patch
Hello Martin,
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 21:24 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> I looked at this for a bit last week to see if I could come up with
> an
> elegant way to accommodate values overridden in sysfs and at the same
> time honor hardware limits changing. However, it quickly gets messy
> sin
Bart,
> How about asking these users to create a udev rule instead of directly
> modifying max_sectors_kb in sysfs?
I looked at this for a bit last week to see if I could come up with an
elegant way to accommodate values overridden in sysfs and at the same
time honor hardware limits changing. Ho
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 22:32 +, Don Brace wrote:
> Users do set max_sectors_kb for performance reasons. They can increase
> performance by setting max_sectors_kb to different values depending on
> their I/O needs.
>
> And, if they set the value, and sd_revalidate_disk changes this value,
> the
; Scott Teel; j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley;
John Hall
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
EXTERNAL EMAIL
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 19:41 +, Don Brace wrote:
> BLKRRPART ends up in the sd driver function sd_revalidate_d
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 19:41 +, Don Brace wrote:
> BLKRRPART ends up in the sd driver function sd_revalidate_disk, which resets
> q->limits.max_sectors = min(rw_max, queue_max_hw_sectors(q));
> back to the value from VPD page 0xb0.
>
> When you cat out max_sectors_kb, it obtains it's va
...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley;
John Hall
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
From: Bart Van Assche [bart.vanass...@wdc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:13 AM
To: h...@infradead.org; Viswas
...@hpe.com; Scott Teel; j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley;
John Hall
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
EXTERNAL EMAIL
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 17:42 +, Don Brace wrote:
> From: Don Brace
> > [ ... ]
> > Hello Don,
>
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 17:42 +, Don Brace wrote:
> From: Don Brace
> > [ ... ]
> > Hello Don,
> >
> > Can you have another look at the udev rules on your test system? The last
> > rule in 60-block.rules looks like a watch rule to me. The same holds for the
> > upstream version of that file
> >
...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley;
John Hall
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Van Assche [mailto:bart.vanass...@wdc.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 2:53 PM
> To: h...@infradead.o
...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley;
John Hall
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Van Assche [mailto:bart.vanass...@wdc.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 2:53 PM
> To: h...@infradead.o
Saleh
> ; Kevin Barnett
> ; joseph.szczy...@hpe.com; Scott Teel
> ; j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley
> ; John Hall
> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
>
> On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 19
On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 19:12 +, Don Brace wrote:
> On Friday Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Can you check on your test system which udev rule changes
> > max_sectors_kb? I
> > have checked two recent Linux distro's but haven't been able to find
> > such a udev rule:
> > $ grep -rw max_sectors_kb /us
Saleh
> ; Kevin Barnett
> ; joseph.szczy...@hpe.com; Scott Teel
> ; j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley
> ; John Hall
> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
>
> On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 21
On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 21:29 +, Don Brace wrote:
> As far as I can see, udev looks for file access in sysfs.
> I am not exactly sure which rule changes this. It was added in more recent
> distros. Can someone help me out?
Hello Don,
Can you check on your test system which udev rule changes ma
Saleh
> ; Kevin Barnett
> ; joseph.szczy...@hpe.com; Scott Teel
> ; j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Justin Lindley
> ; John Hall
> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: preserve sysfs updates to max_sectors_kb
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
>
> On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 16:
On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 16:00 -0500, Don Brace wrote:
> prevent systemd-udevd from changing a device's sysfs entry
> max_sectors_kb back to the default value.
> - max_sectors_kb can be tweaked for better performance.
> - udev can be triggered by sg_logs -t or scsi_temperature, ...
> - sd_revalidat
prevent systemd-udevd from changing a device's sysfs entry
max_sectors_kb back to the default value.
- max_sectors_kb can be tweaked for better performance.
- udev can be triggered by sg_logs -t or scsi_temperature, ...
- sd_revalidate_disk is called from udev by ioctl BLKRRPART
Reviewed-by: Sc
18 matches
Mail list logo
