Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: reimplement FLUSH/FUA to support merge

Tejun Heo
2011-01-23T10:29:27Z

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:25:26AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Again, issuing flushes as fast as possible isn't necessarily better.
> It might feel counter-intuitive but it generally makes sense to delay
> flush if there are a lot of concurrent flush activities going on.
> Another related interesting point is that with flush merging,
> depending on workload, there's a likelihood that FUA, even if the
> device supports it, might result in worse performance than merged DATA
> + single POSTFLUSH sequence.

Let me add a bit.

In general, I'm a bit skeptical about the usefulness of hardware FUA
on a rotating disk. All it saves is a single command issue overhead.
On storage array or SSDs, the balance might be different tho. Event
hen, with flush merging, I think it would heavily depend on the
workload which way it would turn out.

Thanks.

--
tejun