[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:0.048 / U:8.428 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site