linux-kernel - RE: Question about synchronous write on SSD

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000301c872dd$91461fd0$1fa9580a@swcenter.sec.samsung.co.kr>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:55:26 +0900
From:	"Kyungmin Park" <kmpark@...radead.org>
To:	"'Jens Axboe'" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	"'Thomas Petazzoni'" <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	"'Linux Filesystem Mailing List'" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Question about synchronous write on SSD

> >
> > Agree, however see the following sequence.
> >
> > __generic_make_request call q->make_request_fn(q, bio);
> > It was set by blk_init_queue_node with __make_request.
> > There are two ways in __make_request.
> > Case 1, get_rq
> > Case 2, out or merged (otherwise you mean unplug case)
> >
> > In case 1, if the BIO_RW_SYNC is set, the request gets the REQ_RW_SYNC
> > And REQ_RW_SYNC says
> > "include/linux/blkdev.h":112: __REQ_RW_SYNC,          /* request is sync (O_DIRECT) */
> > It means it acts as O_DIRECT flag. Is it right?
> > And it also is same as case 2. Unplug the device.
> > So next time it hasn't chance to merge???
> 
> But that still doesn't make it sync. I think you are working the wrong
> way. For ssd we still want merging and plugging also makes sense to some
> degree, though it probably should be minimized. It'll only cause an
> initial latency, for busy IO workloads you wont be plugging/unplugging
> much anyway.
> 
> In fact your patch makes things WORSE, since the io schedulers will now
> treat the IO as sync and introduce idling for the disk head. And you
> definitely don't want that.

Yes, you're right. It's for testing.
I just want to know the worst or corner case, if all writes are synchronous.
Of course I can measure the using tiotest "Do write synchronous" option.
Then you think it's the worse case?

Kyungmin Park

--
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/