[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1227480776.25499.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:52:56 +0900
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Tejun Heo <teheo@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Dongjun Shin <djshin90@...il.com>, chris.mason@...cle.com
Subject: Re: about TRIM/DISCARD support and barriers
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 13:39 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > We don't attempt to put non-contiguous ranges into a single TRIM yet.
>
> We don't even merge contiguous ranges -- I still need to fix the
> elevators to stop writes crossing writes,
I don't think we want to do that ... it's legal if the write isn't a
barrier and it will inhibit merging. That may be just fine for a SSD,
but it's not for spinning media since they get better performance out of
merged writes.
> before we can stop discards
> from also being barriers. (Discards are just writes, for the purpose of
> that conversation).
Perhaps they shouldn't be ... they have different characteristics. For
instance, a discard may cross a read or write that has no sectors in
common with it; a discard may be merged as a non contiguous range
(assuming the drive supports multiple ranges), etc.
I think it might be better to give it its own type for the elevators.
James
--
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