On 08/15/2009 11:39 AM, jim owens wrote:
***begin rant*** I have not seen any analysis of the benefit and cost to the end user of the TRIM or array UNMAP. We now see that TRIM as implemented by some (all?) SSDs will come at high cost. The cost is all born by the host. Do we get any benefit, or is it all for the device vendor. And when we subtract the cost from the benefit, does the user actually benefit and how? I'm tired of working around shit storage products and broken device protocols from the "T" committees. I suggest we just add a "white list" of devices that handle the discard fast and without us needing NCQ queue drain. Then only send TRIM to devices that are on the white list and throw the others away in the block device layer.
They all will require NCQ queue drain. It's an inherent requirement of the protocol that you can't overlap NCQ and non-NCQ commands, and the trim command is not NCQ.
-- 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
