[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x494obe4kd5.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:22:46 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, tytso@....edu,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate super_operation
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de> writes:
> Not stepping into the debate: I'm happy to see punch go to the mapping
> data and FITRIM pick it up later.
>
> However, I think it's time to question whether we actually still want to
> allow online discard at all. Most of the benchmarks show it to be a net
Define online discard, please.
> lose to almost everything (either SSD or Thinly Provisioned arrays), so
> it's become an "enable this to degrade performance" option with no
> upside.
Some SSDs very much require TRIMming to perform well as they age. If
you're suggesting that we move from doing discards in journal commits to
a batched discard, like the one Lukas implemented, then I think that's
fine. If we need to reintroduce the finer-grained discards due to some
hardware changes in the future, we can always do that.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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