On Wed, Feb 21 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> [cc'ing Ric, Hannes and Dongjun, Hello. Feel free to drag other people in.]
>
> Robert Hancock wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> But we can't really change that, since you need the cache flushed before
> >> issuing the FUA write. I've been advocating for an ordered bit for
> >> years, so that we could just do:
> >>
> >> 3. w/FUA+ORDERED
> >>
> >> normal operation -> barrier issued -> write barrier FUA+ORDERED
> >> -> normal operation resumes
> >>
> >> So we don't have to serialize everything both at the block and device
> >> level. I would have made FUA imply this already, but apparently it's not
> >> what MS wanted FUA for, so... The current implementations take the FUA
> >> bit (or WRITE FUA) as a hint to boost it to head of queue, so you are
> >> almost certainly going to jump ahead of already queued writes. Which we
> >> of course really do not.
>
> Yeah, I think if we have tagged write command and flush tagged (or
> barrier tagged) things can be pretty efficient. Again, I'm much more
> comfortable with separate opcodes for those rather than bits changing
> the behavior.
ORDERED+FUA NCQ would still be preferable to an NCQ enabled flush
command, though.
> Another idea Dongjun talked about while drinking in LSF was ranged
> flush. Not as flexible/efficient as the previous option but much less
> intrusive and should help quite a bit, I think.
But that requires extensive tracking, I'm not so sure the implementation
of that for barriers would be very clean. It'd probably be good for
fsync, though.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
