[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE5A386.7000105@teksavvy.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:07:02 -0500
From: Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
CC: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
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
On 10-11-18 04:50 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Before we go gung ho on this, there's no evidence that N discontiguous
> ranges in one command are any better than the ranges sent N times ...
> the same amount of erase overhead gets sent on SSDs.
No, we do have evidence: execution time of the TRIM commands on the SSD.
The one-range-at-a-time is incredibly slow compared to multiple ranges at a time.
That slowness comes from somewhere, with about 99.9% certainty that it is due
to the drive performing slow flash erase cycles.
I think perhaps we should do the batching as much as possible,
and then split them into single ranges for LLDs that cannot handle multi-ranges.
Way more efficient that way.
Cheers
--
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