Re: [RFC PATCH v2] support ioctl for tunable user request

[Kyungmin Park]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday 05 September 2011, Kyungmin Park wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:47:58PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
>> >> The concept is similar with DISCARD request except no-wait for request complete
>> >>
>> >>  #define REQ_DISCARD            (1 << __REQ_DISCARD)
>> >> +#define REQ_TUNE               (1 << __REQ_TUNE)
>> >>
>> >> As it's hard to detect the idle time at device level, user send the
>> >> tune request to device when idle.
>> >
>> > But what does a "tune" request actually do?  It's an overly generic
>> > term, but I still can't even think of what it would do to a storage
>>
>> Yes, tune is generic term, that's reason to send the RFC patch, we
>> consider the several names, but not found the proper name, if you
>> suggest the proper name, it can change the proper one.
>
> Would __REQ_GC as a shortcut for garbage collection fit? Right now,
> I also think TUNE is not at all describing what we expect the drive
> to do, but it's hard to come up with a term that is generic enough
> to cover similar concepts in other hardware while still describing
> what the drive does.
No problem to use the REQ_GC. BTW, does it acceptable to GC request? I
hope each devices can do own optimization if REQ_GC is requested, if
no need to these one, just ignore it at driver level.

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
--
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/