Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262132AbUC1Rhw (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:37:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262263AbUC1Rhv (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:37:51 -0500 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:59794 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262244AbUC1Rge (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:36:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:36:23 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] speed up SATA Message-ID: <20040328173623.GA1087@mail.shareable.org> References: <4066021A.20308@pobox.com> <40661049.1050004@yahoo.com.au> <406611CA.3050804@pobox.com> <406616EE.80301@pobox.com> <4066191E.4040702@yahoo.com.au> <40662108.40705@pobox.com> <20040328135124.GA32597@mail.shareable.org> <40670A36.3000005@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40670A36.3000005@pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1367 Lines: 31 Jeff Garzik wrote: > >Does TCQ-on-write allow you to do ordered write commits, as with barriers, > >but without needing full cache flushes, and still get good performance? > > Nope, TCQ is just a bunch of commands rather than one. There are no > special barrier indicators you can pass down with a command. I meant without barrier indicators (although that would've been nice). This is what I mean: turn off write cacheing, and performance on PATA drops because of the serialisation and lost inter-command time. With TCQ-on-write, you can turn off write cacheing and in theory performance doesn't have to drop, is that right? In addition, you can implement ordered writes by waiting until "before" writes in a partial order are completed prior to sending "after" writes to the drive. Meanwhile, because of the TCQ, other read and write transactions can continue to take place, even if the disk takes a long time to commit those writes that you're waiting on. I'm wondering if that sort of strategy gives good performance with TCQ-on-write drives, so that full-cache-flush barrier commands aren't useful. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/