[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090511084121.GB29082@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 04:41:21 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is TRIM/DISCARD going to be a performance problem?
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:12:16AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> I largely agree with this. I think that trims should be queued and
> postponed until the drive is largely idle. I don't want to put this IO
> tracking in the block layer though, it's going to slow down our iops
> rates for writes. Providing the functionality in the block layer does
> make sense though, since it sits between that and the fs anyway. So just
> not part of the generic IO path, but a set of helpers on the side.
Yes, I agree. However, in that case, we need two things from the
block I/O path. (A) The discard management layer needs a way of
knowing that the block device has become idle, and (B) ideally there
should be a more efficient method for sending trim requests to the I/O
submission path. If we batch the results, when we *do* send the
discard requests, we may be sending several hundred discards, and it
would be useful if we could pass into the I/O submission path a linked
list of regions, so the queue can be drained *once*, and then a whole
series of discards can be sent to the device all at once.
Does that make sense to you?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists