[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070329223505.481a4f5e@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:35:05 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>, linux@...izon.com,
htejun@...il.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is NCQ enabled by default by libata? (2.6.20)
O> writes, and sending down multiple untagged cached writes that complete
> immediately and actually hit the disk later? Either way the host keeps
> sending writes to the disk until it's buffers are full, and the disk is
> constantly trying to commit those buffers to the media in the most
> optimal order.
On the controller side primarily you get to queue commands which means
you don't have a dead time period between the completion interrupt and
the next command being issued. Those times add up even when there is a
disk cache buffering the output
-
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