[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901152341500.15035@blonde.anvils>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:50:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
cc: Grant Grundler <grundler@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: export SSD/non-rotational queue flag through
sysfs
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> OK, so they could be calculated on the fly in the elevators, I suppose.
> But what would the value be? Right now we use the nonrotational flag to
> basically not bother with plugging (no point if no seek penalty) on
> certain events where we'd previously have waited for other I/O to join.
> But that's really a seek penalty parameter rather than the idea of read
> or write costing (although the elevators usually track these dynamically
> anyway ... as part of the latency calculations but not explicitly).
... not bother with plugging (no point if no seek penalty) ...
I thought there was considerable advantage to plugging writes
(in case they turn out to be adjacent) on current and older
generations of non-rotational storage?
Hugh
--
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