[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190217210948.GB14116@dastard>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:09:48 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@...il.com>
Cc: lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] More async operations for file systems - async
discard?
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 03:36:10PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> One proposal for btrfs was that we should look at getting discard
> out of the synchronous path in order to minimize the slowdown
> associated with enabling discard at mount time. Seems like an
> obvious win for "hint" like operations like discard.
We already have support for that. blkdev_issue_discard() is
synchornous, yes, but __blkdev_issue_discard() will only build the
discard bio chain - it is up to the caller to submit and wait for it.
Some callers (XFS, dm-thinp, nvmet, etc) use a bio completion to
handle the discard IO completion, hence allowing async dispatch and
processing of the discard chain without blocking the caller. Others
(like ext4) simply call submit_bio_wait() to do wait synchronously
on completion of the discard bio chain.
> I do wonder where we stand now with the cost of the various discard
> commands - how painful is it for modern SSD's?
AIUI, it still depends on the SSD implementation, unfortunately.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists