[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.4.x write barriers (updated for ext3)
On March 4, 2002 07:05 pm, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 12:16:35PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > writeback data order is important, mostly because of where the data blocks
> > are in relation to the log. If you've got bdflush unloading data blocks
> > to the disk, and another process doing a commit, the drive's queue
> > might look like this:
> >
> > data1, data2, data3, commit1, data4, data5 etc.
> >
> > If commit1 is an ordered tag, the drive is required to flush
> > data1, data2 and data3, then write the commit, then seek back
> > for data4 and data5.
> Yes, but that's a performance issue, not a correctness one.
> Also, as soon as we have journals on external devices, this whole
> thing changes entirely. We still have to enforce the commit ordering
> in the journal, but we also still need the ordering between that
> commit and any subsequent writeback, and that obviousy can no longer
> be achieved via ordered tags if the two writes are happening on
> different devices.

But the bio layer can manage it, by sending a write barrier down all relevant
queues. We can send a zero length write barrier command, yes?

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 13:21    [W:0.134 / U:7.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site