[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:18:05 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Simon Arlott <simon@...iron.net>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: sd: stop SSD (non-rotational) disks before reboot
On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 06:31:25PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > For SSDs, I don't think an extra stop should ever be an issue.
> >
> > Extra shutdowns will usually cause additional P/E cycles.
>
> I am not so sure. We're talking about enforcing clean shutdowns here
> (from the SSD PoV).
>
> A system reboot takes enough time that the SSD is likely to do about the
> same amount of P cycles commiting to FLASH any important data that it
> would trigger by a shutdown sequence, simply because it should not keep
> important data in RAM for too long. By extension, it would not increase
> E cycles either.
>
> OTOH, unclean shutdowns *always* cause extra P/E, and that's if you're
> lucky enough for it to not cause anything much worse.
The point is - with a normal system that doesn't required your odd
reboot method we'll normally not shut down the SSD at all, and that
won't require a P/E cycle.
But the whole thing is a moot point - if you quirk your system to
require a poweroff to reboot the kernel should trat it as a power off
as far as shutdown/remove callbacks are concerned and everything will
just work as intended.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists