From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO sg-chaining Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:26:44 +0300 > > However, I'm perfectly happy to go with whatever the empirical evidence > > says is best .. and hopefully, now we don't have to pick this once and > > for all time ... we can alter it if whatever is chosen proves to be > > suboptimal. > > I agree. This isn't a catholic marriage :) > We'll run some performance experiments comparing the sgtable chaining > implementation vs. a scsi_data_buff implementation pointing > at a possibly chained sglist and let's see if we can measure > any difference. We'll send results as soon as we have them. I did some tests with your sgtable patchset and the approach to use separate buffer for sglists. As expected, there was no performance difference with small I/Os. I've not tried very large I/Os, which might give some difference. The patchset to use separate buffer for sglists is available: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tomo/linux-2.6-bidi.git simple-sgtable Can you clean up your patchset and upload somewhere? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
