On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in the topic but I severely doubt I'd
> have the capacity to research the background of this in advance. It's also
> unlikely that I'd work on it in the future without throwing out my current
> TODO list. In an ideal world
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Large block support was proposed years ago by Christoph Lameter
> (http://lwn.net/Articles/232757/). I think I was just getting started
> in the community at the time so I do not recall any of the details. I do
> believe it motivated an alterna
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> If the compound page infrastructure exists today and is usable for this,
> what else do we need to do? ... because if it's a couple of trivial
> changes and a few minor patches to filesystems to take advantage of it,
> we might as well do it anyway. I
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
> That'd be okish for 64-bit at least although it would show up as
> degraded performance in some cases when virtually contiguous buffers were
> used. Aside from the higher setup, access costs and teardown costs of a
> virtual contiguous buffer, the underlyin
t avoids a DMA kmalloc slab. Any other GFP_DMAs left in the scsi
layer?
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Salyzyn, Mark wrote:
> So, is the sequence:
>
> p = kmalloc(upsg->sg[i].count,GFP_KERNEL);
> . . .
> addr = pci_map_single(dev->pdev, p, upsg->sg[i].count,
> data_dir);
>
> Going to ensure that we have a 31 bit (not 32 bit) physical address?
Only if you ha
On Thu, 24 May 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Going to ensure that we have a 31 bit (not 32 bit) physical address?
>
> No, unfortunately. Implementing kmalloc_mask() and kmalloc_dev() was
> something I said I'd do ... about two years ago.
Tell me more about these ideas.
-
To unsubscribe from
On Thu, 24 May 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> The idea was basically to match an allocation to a device mask. I was
> going to do a generic implementation (which would probably kmalloc,
> check the physaddr and fall back to GFP_DMA if we were unlucky) but
> allow the architectures to override.
H
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, James Bottomley wrote:
> What people might pay attention to is evidence that there's a problem in
> 3.5-rc6 (without any OFED crap). If you're not going to bother
> investigating, it has to be in an environment they can reproduce (so
> ordinary hardware, not infiniband) otherw
9 matches
Mail list logo
