From: Dongjun Shin <djshin90@gmail.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
Grant Grundler <grundler@google.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: export SSD/non-rotational queue flag through sysfs
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:52:51 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7fe698080901151952u4c6157d3tca8d745b69cacc1e@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1232066174.5966.92.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 23:50 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Heh, you get as many answers to that one as their are SSD manufacturers.
> However, the consensus seems to be that all MLC and SLC flash has a RAID
> like architecture internally, thus it can actually be *faster* if you
> send multiple commands (each area of the RAID processes independently).
> Of course, you have to be *able* to send multiple commands, so the
> device must implement TCQ/NCQ, but if it does, it's actually beneficial
> *not* to wait even if the requests are adjacent.
>
> However, the reason the nonrotational flag is set from user space is
> precisely so if we do find an SSD that has this property, we can just
> not set the nonrotational queue flag.
>
Not all non-rotational SSDs are created equal (as Intel said).
Some SSD performs better as the I/O queue length increase, while others not.
For SSD with scalable queueing performance, it might be better to allow
multiple discrete I/Os.
I'm not sure if "non-rotational" is well suited for tuning the
behavior of elevator merging.
--
Dongjun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-16 3:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-05 18:52 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-01-05 18:54 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-05 19:02 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-01-05 19:08 ` James Bottomley
2009-01-05 19:10 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-05 19:08 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-05 21:47 ` Kay Sievers
2009-01-06 7:35 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-07 10:39 ` Michael Tokarev
2009-01-07 11:19 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-07 15:34 ` James Bottomley
2009-01-15 5:37 ` Tejun Heo
2009-01-15 15:07 ` Greg Freemyer
2009-01-15 15:46 ` Tejun Heo
2009-01-15 16:06 ` James Bottomley
2009-01-15 18:55 ` Grant Grundler
2009-01-15 19:00 ` James Bottomley
2009-01-15 22:45 ` Grant Grundler
2009-01-15 23:17 ` James Bottomley
2009-01-15 23:50 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-01-15 23:57 ` Michael Tokarev
2009-01-16 0:36 ` James Bottomley
2009-01-16 3:52 ` Dongjun Shin [this message]
2009-01-16 6:48 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-16 6:48 ` Jens Axboe
2009-02-03 12:32 ` Pierre Ossman
2009-01-16 6:43 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-05 18:58 ` Alan Cox
[not found] <fa.+H1UnEqOmFht/vMPmVy8ellbQi0@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.RLz5WOGorLui5GRkc963Ww1kXqg@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.x4ejZ7Kj7ZZRu88Sond1Cap6XxY@ifi.uio.no>
2009-01-05 22:18 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2009-01-06 1:25 ` Stefan Richter
2009-01-06 19:46 ` Hugh Dickins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7fe698080901151952u4c6157d3tca8d745b69cacc1e@mail.gmail.com \
--to=djshin90@gmail.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=bzolnier@gmail.com \
--cc=greg.freemyer@gmail.com \
--cc=grundler@google.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®