On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 07:04:20AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 15:58 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:46:58AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 00:35 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Should not be needed because the block layer bounces that all. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 6 ++---- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Index: linux/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > > > > =================================================================== > > > > --- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > > > > +++ linux/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > > > > @@ -1010,8 +1010,7 @@ static int scsi_probe_and_add_lun(struct > > > > if (!sdev) > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > - result = kmalloc(result_len, GFP_ATOMIC | > > > > - ((shost->unchecked_isa_dma) ? __GFP_DMA : 0)); > > > > + result = kmalloc(result_len, GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > if (!result) > > > > goto out_free_sdev; > > > > > > > > @@ -1328,8 +1327,7 @@ static int scsi_report_lun_scan(struct s > > > > * prevent us from finding any LUNs on this target. > > > > */ > > > > length = (max_scsi_report_luns + 1) * sizeof(struct scsi_lun); > > > > - lun_data = kmalloc(length, GFP_ATOMIC | > > > > - (sdev->host->unchecked_isa_dma ? __GFP_DMA : 0)); > > > > + lun_data = kmalloc(length, GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > if (!lun_data) { > > > > printk(ALLOC_FAILURE_MSG, __FUNCTION__); > > > > goto out; > > > > > > Andi, this can't be right. > > > > You mean it is incorrect or just not optimal? > > It's not optimal ... but that's sufficient an objection. > > > > > > > You're removing something that's actually useful. I'm happy to > > > substitute this kmalloc for kmalloc_mask on the device dma mask which > > > will do the same thing and so junk unchecked_isa_dma() that way (and > > > actually fix us up for other weird mask devices), but just using > > > ZONE_NORMAL is wrong because we'll then bounce all the time for > > > something we knew a priori how to avoid. > > > > That would require adding a separate mask just for this to the > > template. I figured the SCSI scan was not performance critical > > so a few more copies just for this case was an ok trade off > > for simpler code. > > Why? We already have the device; can't we just use its mask? These ISA drivers I worked with definitely don't know anything about a device in any form. Also there is the issue that 50+% of the ISA drivers actually don't need it even if they had a ISA device. > > > You think it makes sense to optimize scsi scan? > > It makes sense to use information we already know to optimise the path, In this case we would need to add a special new field for this to the SCSI template (assume unchecked_isa_dma is already gone). You think that is worth it? -Andi - 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