From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:47337 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S943942AbcJaPOO (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:14:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:14:12 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: discard improvements Message-ID: <20161031151412.GA14804@lst.de> References: <1476735753-5861-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <64a1c5dc-4a36-1ef6-606e-b382d36161ef@scylladb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <64a1c5dc-4a36-1ef6-606e-b382d36161ef@scylladb.com> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Avi Kivity Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, michaelcallahan@fb.com On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 01:11:55PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > With these patches, is it reasonable to run with discard enabled, or is > more work needed? As usual the answer is: it depends. With the high-end NVMe devices I've been testing with you absolutely should enable discard. With SAS SSDs the same is probably true. I haven't done much testing with SATA SSDs but I'd be more cautious there, especially as very few seem to support queued TRIM yet.