>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Yan <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Tom> First of all it wouldn't really solve problem for all devices which Tom> have different limits. Only by virtue of us generally aligning on large power of two boundaries. The only reason I am entertaining this in the first place is that I have one drive that behaves in a way similar to yours. And if we can make things slightly better (but not perfect) for several drives without causing any regressions then that's worth exploring. Tom> Secondly I doubt it's related to Deterministic Zero AT ALL. (For Tom> one the SanDisk drive I have shows Deterministic Zero, still it Tom> behaves similarly as the Intel drive.) The drive reporting deterministic zero is not enough. It needs to be explicitly whitelisted before we report discard_zeroes_data=1. Tom> The only patching which would really mean something is to allow Tom> user to configure blocks per range and ranges per command, so that Tom> for users can tune kernel TRIM per device if they really want to, Tom> while leaving the "safe default" intact. I'll think about it. Tom> However I am really curious how the drives "blow up" on less blocks Tom> per range. Isn't that even more of a firmware bug than the problem Tom> I have? I have several older drives that expect a single contiguous LBA range. They don't handle multiple discontiguous ranges at all. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
