Excerpts from James Bottomley's message of 2010-11-18 12:19:10 -0500:On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 09:29 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:I think we want to keep it. In general we've (except for hch) spentOn Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:19:58AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:Not stepping into the debate: I'm happy to see punch go to the mappingI guess I was assuming that, on receiving a FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE, aDid you actually look Lukas FITRIM code (not the slight reordering here,
filesystem that was TRIM-aware would pass that information down to the
block device that it's mounted on. I strongly feel that we shouldn't
have two interfaces to do essentially the same thing.
I guess I'm saying that you're going to have to learn about TRIM :-)
but the original one). It's the ext4 version of the batched discard
model, that is a userspace ioctl to discard free space in the
filesystem.
hole punching will free the blocks into the free space pool. If you do
online discard it will also get discarded, but a filesystem that has
online discard enabled doesn't need FITRIM.
data and FITRIM pick it up later.
However, I think it's time to question whether we actually still want to
allow online discard at all. Most of the benchmarks show it to be a net
lose to almost everything (either SSD or Thinly Provisioned arrays), so
it's become an "enable this to degrade performance" option with no
upside.
almost zero time actually tuning online discard, and the benchmarking
needs to be redone with the shiny new barrier code.
-chris