[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071205002454.52ea755c@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:24:54 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@...il.com>
Cc: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: solid state drive access and context switching
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:08:07 -0800
"Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@...il.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2007 3:24 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Right. The trend is to hide the nastiness of NAND technology changes
> > > behind controllers. In general I think this is a good thing.
> >
> > You miss the point - any controller you hide it behind almost inevitably
> > adds enough latency you don't want to use it synchronously.
>
> I think I get it. We keep saying that it's the latency is too high.
> I agree that most technologies out there have latencies that are too
> high. Again I ask the question, what latencies do we have to hit
> before the sync options become worth it?
Probably about 1000 clocks but its always going to depend upon the
workload and whether any other work can be done usefully.
Alan
--
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