From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Coly Li Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] bcache: back to cache all readahead I/Os Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:49:20 +0800 Message-ID: <6373da22-9dc1-9525-4048-2c533407c917@suse.de> References: <20200123170142.98974-1-colyli@suse.de> <20200123170142.98974-15-colyli@suse.de> <31f7f6b4-98ea-3cf6-44cc-a9ba67484eb0@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57792 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729762AbgAXAtZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:49:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <31f7f6b4-98ea-3cf6-44cc-a9ba67484eb0@kernel.dk> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Michael Lyle , linux-bcache , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, stable On 2020/1/24 2:31 上午, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/23/20 10:27 AM, Coly Li wrote: >> On 2020/1/24 1:19 上午, Michael Lyle wrote: >>> Hi Coly and Jens-- >>> >>> One concern I have with this is that it's going to wear out >>> limited-lifetime SSDs a -lot- faster. Was any thought given to making >>> this a tunable instead of just changing the behavior? Even if we have >>> an anecdote or two that it seems to have increased performance for >>> some workloads, I don't expect it will have increased performance in >>> general and it may even be costly for some workloads (it all comes >>> down to what is more useful in the cache-- somewhat-recently readahead >>> data, or the data that it is displacing). >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> Copied. This is good suggestion, I will do it after I back from Lunar >> New Year vacation, and submit it with other tested patches in following >> v5.6-rc versions. > > Do you want me to just drop this patch for now from the series? > Hi Jens, OK, please drop this patch from this series. I will re-submit the patch with sysfs interface later with other patches. Thanks. -- Coly Li