[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: flush cache range proposal (was Re: ide errors in 7-rc1-mm1 and later)
On Fri, Jun 11 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Unfortunately, that's not the answer drive guys want to hear, because
> FUA limits the optimization potential from previous ATA. ;-) Maybe
> drive performance is high enough these days that queued-FUA as a
> standard mode of operation is tolerable...

Data integrity doesn't come for free. Take a pick :-)

> >If the drive receives a queued barrier write (NCQ or Legacy), it will
> >finish processing all previously-received queued commands and post
> >good status for them, then it will process the barrier operation, post
> >status for that barrier operation, then it will continue processing
> >queued commands in the order received.
> If queued-FUA is out of the question, this seems quite reasonable. It
> appears to achieve the commit-block semantics described for barrier
> operation, AFAICS.

Actually from Linux's point of view, drive may reorder previously
committed requests - just not around the barrier.

Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.079 / U:38.444 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site