[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 06:16 pm, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Monday, March 04, 2002 05:04:34 PM +0000 "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> wrote:
> > Basically, as far as journal writes are concerned, you just want
> > things sequential for performance, so serialisation isn't a problem
> > (and it typically happens anyway). After the journal write, the
> > eventual proper writeback of the dirty data to disk has no internal
> > ordering requirement at all --- it just needs to start strictly after
> > the commit, and end before the journal records get reused. Beyond
> > that, the write order for the writeback data is irrelevant.
> 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.
> If commit1 is not an ordered tag, the drive can write all the
> data blocks, then seek back to get the commit.

We can have more than one queue per device I think. Then we can have reads
unaffected by write barriers, for example. It never makes sense for a the
write barrier to wait on a read.

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 13:24    [W:0.110 / U:5.608 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site