On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Schmid, Carsten wrote: > I have been involved in several benchmarkings of flash devices in the past. > So what we see here is definitely not a device issue regarding wear leveling. > > I wanted to prevent all of you going into the wrong direction, that's why > i wanted Andrea to confirm that it's not a matter of the flash device. > > There are so much items involved into benchmarking flash devices. > But Andrea's observations with factors of 10-30 times slow down > i have never seen before. > > I assume the only thing that you change between the benchmarks > is the kernel (and the modules, of course), right, Andrea? > Then we can rule out cache settings which massively can impact > benchmarks. > > The only thing that makes sense from my POV is: > - collect traces with the kernel before mentioned commit (fast) > - apply patch in doubt > - again collect traces (slow) > - compare the traces > > Then we should be able to see the difference(s). We have already done this. I forget whether the traces are in the email history available in the archives or whether they are stored somewhere else. In any case, my analysis of the traces is in the archives. It seemed very clear that the only difference which mattered was the ordering of the write commands (sequential vs. non-sequential). This was obviously something which the commit in question would affect, and it also seemed likely to cause the device to slow down considerably. Alan Stern > Unfortunately i'm not an expert on the SCSI and USB kernel stuff > involved here. Else i would try to understand what happens and > give you some hints. > > BR > Carsten
