Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261682AbUDCKu0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 05:50:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261703AbUDCKu0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 05:50:26 -0500 Received: from mtvcafw.sgi.com ([192.48.171.6]:30320 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261682AbUDCKuS (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 05:50:18 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:48:26 -0800 From: Jeremy Higdon To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Jeff Garzik , Nick Piggin , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] speed up SATA Message-ID: <20040403104826.GA737325@sgi.com> References: <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> <20040328173623.GA1087@mail.shareable.org> <20040402101108.GA752170@sgi.com> <20040402161149.GA32483@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040402161149.GA32483@mail.shareable.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1587 Lines: 35 On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 05:11:49PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Jeremy Higdon wrote: > > > This is what I mean: turn off write cacheing, and performance on PATA > > > drops because of the serialisation and lost inter-command time. > > > > Since you have to write the sectors in order (well, you don't have > > to, but the drives all do this), you lose a rev between each write > > when you don't queue commands or have write cacheing. > > I don't see how the driver can write the sectors out of order, if > there is no TCQ (we're talking PATA) and every write must be committed > before it's acknowledged (write cache disabled). > > > > With TCQ-on-write, you can turn off write cacheing and in theory > > > performance doesn't have to drop, is that right? > > > > Correct. I have proven this to my satisfaction. > > Are you refuting the following assertion by Eric D. Mudama's, based on > your measurements? In other words, are ATA's 32 TCQ slots enough to > eliminate the performance advantage of write cacheing? I must apologize. I had thought the context was SCSI, but now I see that it is linux-ide. So please disregard comments about command queueing. If you have write cache disabled and no TCQ (latter is common, former may or may not be), you want to write as big a chunk as you can. I'm sorry about the confusion. jeremy - 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/