From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>,
"Pedro M. Rodrigues" <pmanuel@myrealbox.com>,
Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer <mathieu@newview.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doing file transfers
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:58:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2628736224.1033160295@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200209271721.g8RHLTn05231@localhost.localdomain>
>> Hooks for sending ordered tags have been in the aic7xxx driver, at
>> least in FreeBSD's version, since '97. As soon as the Linux cmd
>> blocks have such information it will be trivial to have the aic7xxx
>> driver issue the appropriate tag types.
>
> They already do in 2.5, see scsi_populate_tag_msg() in scsi.h. This
> assumes you're using the generic tag queueing, which the aic7xxx
> doesn't, but you could easily key the tag type off REQ_BARRIER.
If anyone wants to play with the updated aic7xxx and aic79xx drivers
(new port to 2.5, plus it honors the otag stuff), you can pick it up
from here:
--On Friday, September 27, 2002 13:21:29 -0400 James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@steeleye.com> wrote:
>> Which part of the OS are you talking about?
>
> I'm not, I'm talking about the pure physical characteristics of the
> transport bus.
>
>> I also do not believe that the command overhead is as significant as
>> you suggest. I've personally seen a non-packetized SCSI bus perform
>> over 15K transactions per-second.
>
> Well, lets assume the simplest setup possible: select + tag msg + 10 byte
> command + disconnect + reselect + status; that's 17 bytes async. The
> maximum bus speed async narrow is about 4Mb/s, so those 17 bytes take
> around 4us to transmit. On a wide Ultra2 bus, the data rate is about
> 80Mb/s so it takes 50us to transmit 4k or 800us to transmit 64k.
> However, the major killer in this model is going to be disconnection
> delay at around 200us (dwarfing arbitration delay, bus settle time etc).
> For 4k packets you spend about 3 times longer arbitrating for the bus
> than you do transmitting data. For 64k packets it's 25% of your data
> transmit time in arbitration. Your theoretical throughput for 4k
> packets is thus 20Mb/s. In my book that's a significant loss on an
> 80Mb/s bus.
>
> On Fabric busses, you move to the network model and collision
> probabilities which increase as the packet size goes down.
>
> gibbs@scsiguy.com said:
>> Because of read-ahead, the OS should never send 16 4k contiguous reads
>> to the I/O layer for the same application.
>
> read ahead is basically a very simplistic form of I/O scheduling.
>
--On Friday, September 27, 2002 13:21:29 -0400 James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@steeleye.com> wrote:
>> Which part of the OS are you talking about?
>
> I'm not, I'm talking about the pure physical characteristics of the
> transport bus.
>
>> I also do not believe that the command overhead is as significant as
>> you suggest. I've personally seen a non-packetized SCSI bus perform
>> over 15K transactions per-second.
>
> Well, lets assume the simplest setup possible: select + tag msg + 10 byte
> command + disconnect + reselect + status; that's 17 bytes async. The
> maximum bus speed async narrow is about 4Mb/s, so those 17 bytes take
> around 4us to transmit. On a wide Ultra2 bus, the data rate is about
> 80Mb/s so it takes 50us to transmit 4k or 800us to transmit 64k.
> However, the major killer in this model is going to be disconnection
> delay at around 200us (dwarfing arbitration delay, bus settle time etc).
> For 4k packets you spend about 3 times longer arbitrating for the bus
> than you do transmitting data. For 64k packets it's 25% of your data
> transmit time in arbitration. Your theoretical throughput for 4k
> packets is thus 20Mb/s. In my book that's a significant loss on an
> 80Mb/s bus.
>
> On Fabric busses, you move to the network model and collision
> probabilities which increase as the packet size goes down.
>
> gibbs@scsiguy.com said:
>> Because of read-ahead, the OS should never send 16 4k contiguous reads
>> to the I/O layer for the same application.
>
> read ahead is basically a very simplistic form of I/O scheduling.
>
http://people.FreeBSD.org/~gibbs/linux/linux-2.5-aic79xxx.tar.gz
--
Justin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-27 20:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-26 3:27 Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doing file transfers Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer
2002-09-26 6:14 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-26 7:04 ` Pedro M. Rodrigues
2002-09-26 15:31 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 6:13 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 6:33 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 6:36 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 6:50 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 6:56 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 7:18 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 7:24 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 7:29 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 7:34 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 7:45 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 8:37 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 10:25 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 12:18 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 12:54 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 13:30 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 14:26 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-27 14:33 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 16:26 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 17:21 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-27 18:56 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 19:07 ` Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doingfile transfers Andrew Morton
2002-09-27 19:16 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 19:36 ` Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doingfiletransfers Andrew Morton
2002-09-27 19:52 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 21:13 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-27 21:18 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 21:23 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-27 21:29 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 21:32 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 22:08 ` Mike Anderson
2002-09-30 23:49 ` Doug Ledford
2002-09-27 21:28 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-28 15:52 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-28 23:25 ` Luben Tuikov
2002-09-29 2:48 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-30 8:34 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-29 4:00 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-29 15:45 ` James Bottomley
2002-09-29 16:49 ` [ getting OT ] " Matthew Jacob
2002-09-30 19:06 ` Luben Tuikov
2002-09-30 23:54 ` Doug Ledford
2002-09-27 19:58 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-27 20:58 ` Justin T. Gibbs [this message]
2002-09-27 21:38 ` Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doing file transfers Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-27 22:08 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 22:28 ` Patrick Mansfield
2002-09-27 22:48 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 18:59 ` Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doingfile transfers Andrew Morton
2002-09-27 14:30 ` Warning - running *really* short on DMA buffers while doing file transfers Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 17:19 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 18:29 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-27 14:56 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-27 15:34 ` Matthew Jacob
2002-09-27 15:37 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-27 17:20 ` Justin T. Gibbs
2002-09-27 12:28 ` Pedro M. Rodrigues
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2628736224.1033160295@aslan.btc.adaptec.com \
--to=gibbs@scsiguy.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu@newview.com \
--cc=mjacob@feral.com \
--cc=pmanuel@myrealbox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).