Re: Linux 2.6.29

[Mark Lord]

Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
..
> > That's one of the issues. The cost of those flushes can be really 
> > quite high, and as mentioned, in the absense of redundancy you don't 
> > actually get the guarantees that you seem to think that you get.
>
> I have measured the costs of the write flushes on a variety of devices, 
> routinely, a cache flush is on the order of 10-20 ms with a healthy 
> s-ata drive.
..

Err, no.  Yes, the flush itself will be very quick,
since the drive is nearly always keeping up with the I/O
already (as we are discussing in a separate subthread here!).

But.. the cost of that FLUSH_CACHE command can be quite significant.
To issue it, we first have to stop accepting R/W requests,
and then wait for up to 32 of them currently in-flight to complete.
Then issue the cache-flush, and wait for that to complete.

Then resume R/W again.

And FLUSH_CACHE is a PIO command for most libata hosts,
so it has a multi-microsecond CPU hit as well as the I/O hit,
whereas regular R/W commands will usually use less CPU because
they are usually done via an automated host command queue.

Tiny, but significant.  And more so on smaller/slower end-user systems
like netbooks than on datacenter servers, perhaps.

Cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/