On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> But the question is whether it's worth the hassle since there a many of
> these devices out there and it is unclear whether treating them as
> non-rotational is a win. If you can provide some compelling performance
> improvement numbers for a particular device we can look into adding a
> quirk for it.
In an ideal world where information and engineers are cost-free...
if a device is non-rotational, we should know this, whether it's
ancient compact flash, or gigabyte's DRAM-based ATA device, or modern
SSD. It shouldn't be a question of whether or not treating a
non-rotational device as a non-rotational device is performance win --
because if you're asking that question, it might imply areas where we
are making invalid assumptions about certain classes of non-rotational
devices :)
So while the two approaches presented are not remotely optimal in
terms of identifying all the non-rotational ATA devices out in the
field, I do think there is value in accurately flagging all
non-rotational devices as such. But it is, IMO, not important to have
this list in the kernel; if such a project is undertaken, a userspace
pkg such as storage-fixup seems more appropriate.
Jeff
--
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
