[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:12:18 +0100
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Akira Hayakawa <ruby.wktk@...il.com>
CC: snitzer@...hat.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org, thornber@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2] staging: writeboost: Add dm-writeboost
On 12/12/14 01:42, Akira Hayakawa wrote:
> 1. Writeboost shouldn't split the bio into 4KB chunks.
> No. It is necessary.
> I know WALB (https://github.com/starpos/walb) logs data without
> splitting but the data structure becomes complicated.
> If you read my code carefully, you will notice that splitting
> helps the design simplicity and performance.
This is the first time I see someone claiming that reducing the request
size improves performance. I don't know any SSD model for which
splitting requests improves performance.
Additionally, since bio's are split by dm-writeboost, this makes me
wonder how atomic writes will ever be supported ? Atomic writes are
being standardized by the T10 SCSI committee. I don't think the Linux
block layer already supports atomic writes today but I expect support
for atomic writes to be added to the block layer sooner or later. See
e.g. http://www.t10.org/doc13.htm / SBC-4 SPC-5 Atomic writes and reads
for the latest draft specification.
Bart.
--
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