[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Jens Axboe wrote:
    > On Tue, Oct 14 2008, Pierre Ossman wrote:
    >> Hi Jeff,
    >> I noticed you've added a new flag to indicate that the drive has no
    >> seek costs and I figured it would be a good idea to use that on the
    >> MMC/SD cards.
    > That was me, actually...
    >> Since the name isn't entirely clear in what is implied, I just wanted
    >> to check that there are no plans to assume that there is negligable
    >> request overhead for queues with this flag. I.e. the flag should
    >> indicate that the elevator doesn't have to care about seeks, but it
    >> should still try to merge requests to reduce the transaction overhead.
    > Sounds about right. The flag is just meant to indicate zero-seek cost,
    > as devices will still have per-command overheads, merging is still
    > applicable.
    > So yes, you want to set that flag for mmc/sd cards, definitely.

    Is there a way for users to get / set it manually? Can hdparm / sdparm / sg_inq tell me whether my device sets the flag... I think you said it was word 0x217 in a recent draft, but I don't know how I could query that as a user.

    I'd like to know whether the SSD in my netbook provides the right flag - and if not, set it manually, instead of having to force the noop io scheduler.

    It might also be possible to write a udev test program, which would be guaranteed exclusive access, to measure seek times and set the flag appropriately. I assume we wouldn't be able to rely on USB flash drives having the right flag set.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-14 10:11    [W:0.022 / U:35.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site