[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq18sy8ili7.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:51:12 -0500
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@...il.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
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?
Keith,
> With respect to fs block sizes, one thing making discards suck is that
> many high capacity SSDs' physical page sizes are larger than the fs
> block size, and a sub-page discard is worse than doing nothing.
That ties into the whole zeroing as a side-effect thing.
The devices really need to distinguish between discard-as-a-hint where
it is free to ignore anything that's not a whole multiple of whatever
the internal granularity is, and the WRITE ZEROES use case where the end
result needs to be deterministic.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists