On 29/04/2016 06:00, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> Actually, It was an objection.
>
> Knowing that WRITESAME(16), used as the discard mechanism, can cause
> storage servers to misbehave (like QEMU's SCSI WRITESAME
> implementation, workaround-ed by commit e461338b6cd4) and those
> storage servers
> "Ben" == Ben Hutchings writes:
Ben> But if sd in 3.16 is wrongly promising that discard zeroes data, it
Ben> really does need to be fixed somehow.
If there's a regression on a particular device we should address that
rather than dropping valid fixes from core SCSI code.
--
Martin K. Pete
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 01:00 -0300, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> Actually, It was an objection.
[...]
OK, then I'll drop all these commits from the queue:
7985090aa020 sd: disable discard_zeroes_data for UNMAP
397737223c59 sd: Make discard granularity match logical block size when LBPRZ=1
f4327a95
Martin,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Martin K. Petersen
wrote:
>> "Rafael" == Rafael David Tinoco writes:
>
> Rafael,
>
> Rafael> And this happened because the storage in question didn't set
> Rafael> properly "max_ws_blocks" (it was 0) from VPD 0xb0 (max_ws_blocks
> Rafael> is calculate
> "Rafael" == Rafael David Tinoco writes:
Rafael,
Rafael> And this happened because the storage in question didn't set
Rafael> properly "max_ws_blocks" (it was 0) from VPD 0xb0 (max_ws_blocks
Rafael> is calculated using it).
We appear to be talking about a device that has an internal limit
Actually, It was an objection.
Knowing that WRITESAME(16), used as the discard mechanism, can cause
storage servers to misbehave (like QEMU's SCSI WRITESAME
implementation, workaround-ed by commit e461338b6cd4) and those
storage servers can't rely on LBPRZ flag to opt out from WRITESAME as
discar
On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 17:43 -0300, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> It seems that changing discard method from UNMAP to WRITE SAME(16)
> without using NDOB bit (as first described in sbc3r35b.pdf) can cause
> performance problems on big discards (since data-out buffer will be
> checked for every WRITE
> "Rafael" == Rafael David Tinoco writes:
Rafael> It seems that changing discard method from UNMAP to WRITE
Rafael> SAME(16) without using NDOB bit (as first described in
Rafael> sbc3r35b.pdf) can cause performance problems on big discards
Rafael> (since data-out buffer will be checked for ev
It seems that changing discard method from UNMAP to WRITE SAME(16)
without using NDOB bit (as first described in sbc3r35b.pdf) can cause
performance problems on big discards (since data-out buffer will be
checked for every WRITE SAME command). I think this is happening after
this commit, since NDOB
3.16.35-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: "Martin K. Petersen"
commit 7985090aa0201fa7760583f9f8e6ba41a8d4c392 upstream.
The T10 SBC UNMAP command does not provide any hard guarantees that
blocks will return zeroes on a subsequent REA
10 matches
Mail list logo
