All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: add sysfs entry to avoid FUA
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 13:15:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YpZ3WI/Vjgk/CwFE@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YpGtDhV7V7gDk430@infradead.org>

On 05/27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 06:06:08PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > I think there's still some benefit to use FUA such as small chunk writes
> > for checkpoint.
> 
> Did you measure if there is?  Because some SSDs basically implemented
> FUA as an implied flush after the write, in which case it would not
> really help there either (but also not hurt).
> 
> But as the previous two maintainers already said - this needs quirking
> at the driver layer, not in the submitter.

Thanks, I indeed measured this using UFS, and it turned out cache_flush
is better than FUA all the time like this. Hence, I posted a quirk [1].

Write(us/KB)	4	64	256	1024	2048
FUA		873.792	754.604	995.624	1011.67	1067.99
CACHE_FLUSH	824.703	712.98	800.307	1019.5	1037.37

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20220531201053.3300018-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org/T/#u

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: add sysfs entry to avoid FUA
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 13:15:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YpZ3WI/Vjgk/CwFE@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YpGtDhV7V7gDk430@infradead.org>

On 05/27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 06:06:08PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > I think there's still some benefit to use FUA such as small chunk writes
> > for checkpoint.
> 
> Did you measure if there is?  Because some SSDs basically implemented
> FUA as an implied flush after the write, in which case it would not
> really help there either (but also not hurt).
> 
> But as the previous two maintainers already said - this needs quirking
> at the driver layer, not in the submitter.

Thanks, I indeed measured this using UFS, and it turned out cache_flush
is better than FUA all the time like this. Hence, I posted a quirk [1].

Write(us/KB)	4	64	256	1024	2048
FUA		873.792	754.604	995.624	1011.67	1067.99
CACHE_FLUSH	824.703	712.98	800.307	1019.5	1037.37

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20220531201053.3300018-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org/T/#u


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-31 20:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-27 20:59 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: add sysfs entry to avoid FUA Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-27 20:59 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-27 21:33 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-27 21:33   ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-27 23:55   ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-27 23:55     ` [f2fs-dev] " Dave Chinner
2022-05-28  0:26     ` Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-28  0:26       ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-28  5:12       ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-28  5:12         ` [f2fs-dev] " Dave Chinner
2022-05-28  1:06   ` Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-28  1:06     ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-28  1:42     ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-28  1:42       ` [f2fs-dev] " Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-28  5:03     ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-28  5:03       ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-31 20:15       ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2022-05-31 20:15         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-28  1:07 ` [f2fs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2] " Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-28  1:07   ` Jaegeuk Kim

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=YpZ3WI/Vjgk/CwFE@google.com \
    --to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.