[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45AC2F99.3040209@garzik.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:51:21 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>,
Björn Steinbrink
<B.Steinbrink@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
htejun@...il.com
Subject: Re: SATA exceptions with 2.6.20-rc5
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> I'd be surprised if the device would not obey the 7 second timeout rule
>>> that seems to be set in stone and not allow more dirty in-drive cache
>>> than it could flush out in approximately that time.
>> AFAIK Windows flush-cache timeout is 30 seconds, not 7 as with other
>> commands...
>
> Ok, 7 seconds for FLUSH_CACHE would have been nice for us too though, as
> it would pretty much guarentee lower latencies for random writes and
> write back caching. The concern is the barrier code, of course. I guess
> I should do some timings on potential worst case patterns some day. Alan
> may have done that sometime in the past, iirc.
FWIW: According to the drive guys (Eric M, among others), FLUSH CACHE
will "probably" be under 30 seconds, but pathological cases might even
extend beyond that.
Definitely more than 7 seconds in less-than-pathological cases,
unfortunately...
The SCSI layer /should/ already take this (30 second timeout) into
account, for SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (and thus FLUSH CACHE for libata) but I'm
too slack to check at the moment.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists