On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:02:08AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > (cc'ing Martin K. Petersen, hi!) > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 06:38:39AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > With this patchset, you don't have to expose all the limits. You can > > > expose just a few most useful limits to avoid bio split in the cases > > > described above. > > > > Yeah, if that actually helps, sure. From what I read, dm is already > > (ab)using merge_bvec_fn() like that anyway. > > i thought a bit more about it and the only thing which makes sense to > me is exposing the stripe granularity for striped devices - > ie. something which says "if you go across this boundary, the > performance characteristics including latency might get affected", > which should fit nicely with the rest of topology information. > Martin, adding that shouldn't be difficult, right? We already have the optimal IO size/alignment field in the topology. Doesn't this fit what you want exactly? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
