On 10/30/23 04:11, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
On 10/18/2023 2:17 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:+/* Block storage write lifetime hint values. */ +enum rw_hint { + WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET = 0, /* RWH_WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET */ + WRITE_LIFE_NONE = 1, /* RWH_WRITE_LIFE_NONE */ + WRITE_LIFE_SHORT = 2, /* RWH_WRITE_LIFE_SHORT */ + WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM = 3, /* RWH_WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM */ + WRITE_LIFE_LONG = 4, /* RWH_WRITE_LIFE_LONG */ + WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME = 5, /* RWH_WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME */ +} __packed; + +static_assert(sizeof(enum rw_hint) == 1);Does it make sense to do away with these, and have temperature-neutral names instead e.g., WRITE_LIFE_1, WRITE_LIFE_2? With the current choice: - If the count goes up (beyond 5 hints), infra can scale fine but these names do not. Imagine ULTRA_EXTREME after EXTREME. - Applications or in-kernel users can specify LONG hint with data that actually has a SHORT lifetime. Nothing really ensures that LONG is really LONG. Temperature-neutral names seem more generic/scalable and do not present the unnecessary need to be accurate with relative temperatures.
Thanks for having taken a look at this patch series. Jens asked for data that shows that this patch series improves performance. Is this something Samsung can help with? Thanks, Bart.
