| To: | Mark Lord <liml@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support |
| From: | James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:42:36 -0600 |
| Cc: | Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx, IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <4A8D5FDB.7080505@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <20090816004705.GA7347@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090819203916.GA25296@xxxxxxx> <4A8CA956.2060406@xxxxxx> <4A8D5442.1000302@xxxxxxxxxx> <4A8D5FDB.7080505@xxxxxx> |
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 10:38 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > Would it still be okay to do the TRIMs when the entire parity stripe > (across all members) is being discarded? (As opposed to just partial > data there being dropped) Not really. The problem is that array verification is done at the block level not the fs level (although, I suppose, we could change that). So a fully discarded stripe still has to verify OK (as in what's read for the parity must match what's read for the data). All of this is the reason for the TPRZ bit for SCSI UNMAP ... and why WRITE_SAME is also under consideration for discards in T10. James |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Ric Wheeler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Douglas Gilbert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Greg Freemyer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Rolf Eike Beer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |