[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:0.021 / U:38.288 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site