From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org>
Cc: 'Thomas Petazzoni' <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
'Linux Filesystem Mailing List' <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about synchronous write on SSD
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:00:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080219100034.GV23197@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000301c872dd$91461fd0$1fa9580a@swcenter.sec.samsung.co.kr>
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree, however see the following sequence.
> > >
> > > __generic_make_request call q->make_request_fn(q, bio);
> > > It was set by blk_init_queue_node with __make_request.
> > > There are two ways in __make_request.
> > > Case 1, get_rq
> > > Case 2, out or merged (otherwise you mean unplug case)
> > >
> > > In case 1, if the BIO_RW_SYNC is set, the request gets the REQ_RW_SYNC
> > > And REQ_RW_SYNC says
> > > "include/linux/blkdev.h":112: __REQ_RW_SYNC, /* request is sync (O_DIRECT) */
> > > It means it acts as O_DIRECT flag. Is it right?
> > > And it also is same as case 2. Unplug the device.
> > > So next time it hasn't chance to merge???
> >
> > But that still doesn't make it sync. I think you are working the wrong
> > way. For ssd we still want merging and plugging also makes sense to some
> > degree, though it probably should be minimized. It'll only cause an
> > initial latency, for busy IO workloads you wont be plugging/unplugging
> > much anyway.
> >
> > In fact your patch makes things WORSE, since the io schedulers will now
> > treat the IO as sync and introduce idling for the disk head. And you
> > definitely don't want that.
>
> Yes, you're right. It's for testing.
> I just want to know the worst or corner case, if all writes are synchronous.
> Of course I can measure the using tiotest "Do write synchronous" option.
> Then you think it's the worse case?
If you want to test when all writes are sync, then either mount with -o
sync, open with O_SYNC or use O_DIRECT writes. You can't force that
behaviour by changing the block layer code. Perhaps you could force
O_SYNC when a file is opened, if you want to experiment with worst case
generally. Not sure that makes a lot of sense, though.
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-19 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-19 5:48 Question about synchronous write on SSD Kyungmin Park
2008-02-19 8:16 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2008-02-19 9:39 ` Kyungmin Park
2008-02-19 9:43 ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-19 9:55 ` Kyungmin Park
2008-02-19 10:00 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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=20080219100034.GV23197@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=kmpark@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).