Re: Discard support (was Re: [PATCH] swap: send callback when swap slot is freed)

James Bottomley
2009-08-17T19:18:44Z

On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 14:21 -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, James Bottomley<James.Bottomley@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:08 -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Seems like the high-level wrap-up of all this is:
> >>
> >> There are hopes that highly efficient SSDs will appear on the market
> >> that can leverage a passthru non-coalescing discard feature. And that
> >> a whitelist should be created to allow those SSDs to see discards
> >> intermixed with the rest of the data i/o.
> >
> > That's not my conclusion. Mine was the NCQ drain would still be
> > detremental to interleaved trim even if the drive could do it for zero
> > cost.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood Jim Owens previous comment that designing for
> devices that only meet the spec. was not his / Linus'es preference.
>
> Instead they want to have a whitelist enabled list of drives that
> support trim / ncq without having to drain the queue.

There's no way to do this. The spec explicitly requires that you not
overlap tagged and untagged commands. The reason is fairly obvious:
you wouldn't be able to separate the completions.

> I just re-read his post and he did not explicitly say that, so maybe
> I'm mis-representing it.
>
> >> For the other known cases:
> >>
> >> SSDs that meet the ata-8 spec, but don't exceed it
> >> Enterprise SCSI
> >
> > No, SCSI will do WRITE_SAME/UNMAP as currently drafted in SBC3
> >
> >> mdraid with SSD storage used to build raid5 / raid6 arrays
> >>
> >> Non-coalescing is believed detrimental,
> >
> > It is? Why?
>
> For the only compliant SSD in the wild, Mark has shown it to be true
> via testing.

He only said larger trims take longer. As I said previously, if it's a
X+nY relationship, then we still benefit from accumulation up to some
value of n.

> For Enterprise SCSI, I thought you said a coalescing solution is
> preferred. (I took that to mean non-coalescing is detremental. Not
> true?).

I'm trying to persuade the array vendors to speak for themselves, but it
seems that UNMAP takes time. Of course, in SCSI, this is a taggable
command so we don't have the drain overhead ... but then we can't do
anything that would produce an undetermined state based on out of order
tag execution either.

> For mdraid, if the trims are not coalesced mdraid will have to either
> ignore them, or coalesce them themselves. Having them come in bigger
> discard ranges is clearly better. (ie. At least the size of a stripe,
> so it can adjust the start / end sector to a stripe boundary.)

If we did discard accumulation in-kernel (a big if), it would likely be
at the request level; thus md and dm would automatically inherit it.
dm/md are a problem for a userspace accumulation solution, though
(although I suspect the request elevator can fix that).

> >> but a regular flushing of the
> >> unused blocks/sectors via a tool like Mark Lord has written should be
> >> acceptable.
> >>
> >> Mark, I don't believe your tool really addresses the mdraid situation,
> >> do you agree. ie. Since your bypassing most of the block stack,
> >> mdraid has no way of snooping on / adjusting the discards you are
> >> sending out.
> >>
> >> Thus the 2 solutions that have been worked on already seem to address
> >> the needs of everything but mdraid.
> >
> > I count three: Mark Lord script via SG_IO. hch enhanced script via
> > XFS_TRIM and willy current discard inline which he's considering
> > coalescing for.
>
> I missed XFS_TRIM somehow. What benefit does XFS_TRIM provide at a
> high level? Is it part of the realtime delete file process, or an
> after the fact scanner?

It guarantees that trim does not overlap allocations and writes on a
running system, so it gives us safety of execution.

James