[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120307005203.GB5717@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:52:03 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Some interesting input from a flash manufacturer
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Ted" == Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> writes:
>
> Ted> As far as the /sys/block/XXX/queue/* framework, certainly. It's
> Ted> not clear, however, whether or not we should use entirely new
> Ted> parameters, or try to reuse the existing parameters. For example,
> Ted> would it be better to use optimal_io_size for the flash page size,
> Ted> or the erase block size?
>
> If we were to use the existing fields we'd probably set min_io to the
> flash page size and optimal_io to the erase block size.
But min_io currently means the smallest size that we're allowed to
write, correct? And the flash page size could be 128k and 512 byte
writes might be perfectly OK; it's just that writes are more optimal
at 128k, and would be even more optimal at the erbase block size of 4
megs. That's why I'm not sure it makes sense to use the existing
fields, since it will confuse file system utilities that are reading
those fields.
- 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