on 30/11/2013 17:55 George Wilson said the following: > Andriy, > > The fix looks good but I have a couple of questions: > > 1. Are you sure you want the TRIM priority to be lower than SCRUB?
I am not sure but I think that that's how we had it prior to 4045: http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zio.c#69 > 2. You have zfs_vdev_trim_max_active set to 1 with an /* XXX */ next to it. > Does > this mean you haven't settled on the final value for active max? That was the gist of my question - what zfs_vdev_trim_max_active and zfs_vdev_trim_min_active should be. Hence the "XXX". > On 11/30/13 10:13 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> [resending with CC fixed] >> >> Matt, >> >> as you most likely know, ZFS/FreeBSD already has ability to use TRIM command >> with disks that support it. >> As the command can be quite slow and it is a maintenance kind of command, it >> makes sense to assign a very low priority to it. >> >> I've come up with the following change that introduces a new priority for the >> TRIM zios: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/zfs-trim-priority.diff >> To be honest, this change actually attempts to restore what we already had in >> FreeBSD before I merged your write throttle & i/o scheduler performance work. >> >> Could you please review the change? >> I am not sure if I correctly translated my intent to the min_active and >> max_active values. I will greatly appreciate your help with these. >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer > -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
