Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Tue, 31 May 2022 13:15:20 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: add sysfs entry to avoid FUA
Message-ID: <YpZ3WI/Vjgk/CwFE@google.com>
References: <20220527205955.3251982-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org>
 <YpFDw3mQjN1LBd2j@gmail.com>
 <YpF1gPrQY3UFsgwC@google.com>
 <YpGtDhV7V7gDk430@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YpGtDhV7V7gDk430@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 05/27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 06:06:08PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > I think there's still some benefit to use FUA such as small chunk writes
> > for checkpoint.
> 
> Did you measure if there is?  Because some SSDs basically implemented
> FUA as an implied flush after the write, in which case it would not
> really help there either (but also not hurt).
> 
> But as the previous two maintainers already said - this needs quirking
> at the driver layer, not in the submitter.

Thanks, I indeed measured this using UFS, and it turned out cache_flush
is better than FUA all the time like this. Hence, I posted a quirk [1].

Write(us/KB)	4	64	256	1024	2048
FUA		873.792	754.604	995.624	1011.67	1067.99
CACHE_FLUSH	824.703	712.98	800.307	1019.5	1037.37

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20220531201053.3300018-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org/T/#u