On 08/13/2009 11:43 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 08:13 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:48:27PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
But fundamentally, though I can see how this cutdown communication
path is useful to compcache, I'd much rather deal with it by the more
general discard route if we can. (I'm one of those still puzzled by
the way swap is mixed up with block device in compcache: probably
because I never found time to pay attention when you explained.)
You're right to question the utility of the current swap discard
placement. That code is almost a year old, written from a position
of great ignorance, yet only now do we appear to be on the threshold
of having an SSD which really supports TRIM (ah, the Linux ATA TRIM
support seems to have gone missing now, but perhaps it's been
waiting for a reality to check against too - Willy?).
I am indeed waiting for hardware with TRIM support to appear on my
desk before resubmitting the TRIM code. It'd also be nice to be able to
get some performance numbers.
I won't be surprised if we find that we need to move swap discard
support much closer to swap_free (though I know from trying before
that it's much messier there): in which case, even if we decided to
keep your hotline to compcache (to avoid allocating bios etc.), it
would be better placed alongside.
It turns out there are a lot of tradeoffs involved with discard, and
they're different between TRIM and UNMAP.
Let's start with UNMAP. This SCSI command is used by giant arrays.
They want to do Thin Provisioning, so allocate physical storage to virtual
LUNs on demand, and want to deallocate it when they get an UNMAP command.
They allocate storage in large chunks (hundreds of kilobytes at a time).
They only care about discards that enable them to free an entire chunk.
The vast majority of users *do not care* about these arrays, because
they don't have one, and will never be able to afford one. We should
ignore the desires of these vendors when designing our software.
Fundamentally, unmap, trim and write_same do similar things, so
realistically they all map to discard in linux.
Ignoring the desires of the enterprise isn't an option, since they are a
good base for us. However, they really do need to step up with a useful
patch set for discussion that does what they want, so in the interim I'm
happy with any proposal that doesn't actively damage what the enterprise
wants to do with trim/write_same.
I definitely agree - the UNMAP support and the needs of array users is a
critical part of the solution.
I would also dispute the contention that this is irrelevant to most
users - even those of us who don't personally use arrays almost always
use them indirectly since major banks, airlines, etc all use them to
store our data :-)
Solid State Drives are introducing an ATA command called TRIM. SSDs
generally have an intenal mapping layer, and due to their low, low seek
penalty, will happily remap blocks anywhere on the flash. They want
to know when a block isn't in use any more, so they don't have to copy
it around when they want to erase the chunk of storage that it's on.
The unfortunate thing about the TRIM command is that it's not NCQ, so
all NCQ commands have to finish, then we can send the TRIM command and
wait for it to finish, then we can send NCQ commands again.
That's a bit of a silly protocol oversight ... I assume there's no way
it can be corrected?
So TRIM isn't free, and there's a better way for the drive to find
out that the contents of a block no longer matter -- write some new
data to it. So if we just swapped a page in, and we're going to swap
something else back out again soon, just write it to the same location
instead of to a fresh location. You've saved a command, and you've
saved the drive some work, plus you've allowed other users to continue
accessing the drive in the meantime.
I am planning a complete overhaul of the discard work. Users can send
down discard requests as frequently as they like. The block layer will
cache them, and invalidate them if writes come through. Periodically,
the block layer will send down a TRIM or an UNMAP (depending on the
underlying device) and get rid of the blocks that have remained unwanted
in the interim.
Thoughts on that are welcome.
What you're basically planning is discard accumulation ... it's
certainly closer to what the enterprise is looking for, so no objections
from me.
James
This sounds like a good approach to me as well. I think that both TRIM
and UNMAP use case will benefit from coalescing these discard requests,
Ric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
