From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Large block for I/O
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:06:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZYWz8K98YUGf/VZp@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZYWm_tMtfrKaNf3t@kbusch-mbp>
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 08:10:54AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> If the host really wants to write in small granularities, then larger
> block sizes just shifts the write amplification from the device to the
> host, which seems worse than letting the device deal with it.
Maybe? I'm never sure about that. See, if the drive is actually
managing the flash in 16kB chunks internally, then the drive has to do a
RMW which is increased latency over the host just doing a 16kB write,
which can go straight to flash. Assuming the host has the whole 16kB in
memory (likely?) Of course, if you're PCIe bandwidth limited, then a
4kB write looks more attractive, but generally I think drives tend to
be IOPS limited not bandwidth limited today?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-22 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <7970ad75-ca6a-34b9-43ea-c6f67fe6eae6@iogearbox.net>
2023-12-20 10:01 ` LSF/MM/BPF: 2024: Call for Proposals Daniel Borkmann
2023-12-20 15:03 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Large block for I/O Hannes Reinecke
2023-12-21 20:33 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-21 20:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-21 21:00 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-22 5:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-12-22 5:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-22 5:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-01-08 19:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-08 19:35 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-02-22 18:45 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-02-25 23:09 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-26 15:25 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-03-07 1:59 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-03-07 5:31 ` Dave Chinner
2024-03-07 7:29 ` Luis Chamberlain
2023-12-22 8:23 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2023-12-22 12:29 ` Hannes Reinecke
2023-12-22 13:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-22 15:10 ` Keith Busch
2023-12-22 16:06 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2023-12-25 8:55 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2023-12-25 8:12 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2024-02-23 16:41 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-01-17 13:37 ` LSF/MM/BPF: 2024: Call for Proposals [Reminder] Daniel Borkmann
2024-02-14 13:03 ` LSF/MM/BPF: 2024: Call for Proposals [Final Reminder] Daniel Borkmann
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=ZYWz8K98YUGf/VZp@casper.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=slava@dubeyko.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).