[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190222111532.4ead81dc@natsu>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:15:32 +0500
From: Roman Mamedov <rm@...anrm.net>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
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?
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 22:01:24 -0500
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> wrote:
> Consequently, many of the modern devices that claim to support discard
> to make us software folks happy (or to satisfy a purchase order
> requirements) complete the commands without doing anything at all.
> We're simply wasting queue slots.
Any example of such devices? Let alone "many"? Where you would issue a
full-device blkdiscard, but then just read back old data.
I know only one model(PLEXTOR PX-512M6M) of dozens tested, which is peculiar
that it ignores trim specifically for the 1st sector of the entire disk. But
implying there are "many" which no-op it entirely, seems like imagining the
world already works like you would assume it to.
--
With respect,
Roman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists