On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:00:18PM -0700, Chris Mason wrote: > > Thinking more, my guess is that google will just keep doing what they > are already doing ;) But there could be a flag in sysfs dedicated to > trim-for-fallocate so admins can see what their devices are reporting. > readonly in mainline, if someone wants to patch it in their large data > center it wouldn't be hard. That's true, because one of the major use cases is SATA drives where trim isn't available. Even for SAS drives where you have WRITE SAME, you wouldn't want to use it for large fallocate regions. So I see using reliable trim as a zeroing mechanism to be orthogonal to the question of NO_HIIDE_STALE. I do think that using TRIM in various causes where we are doing an fallocate does make sense for non-rotational devices. In general TRIM should be fast enough that that I'd be surprised that people would be complaining --- especially since most of the time, fallocate isn't on the timing-critical path of most applications. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
