[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] ide write barrier support
    On Mon, Oct 20 2003, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > Hi Jens,
    > On Monday 13 October 2003 16:08, Jens Axboe wrote:
    > > Forward ported and tested today (with the dummy ext3 patch included),
    > > works for me. Some todo's left, but I thought I'd send it out to gauge
    > > interest.
    > This is highly interesting of course, but is it suitable for
    > submission during the stability freeze? There is no correctness issue
    > so long as no filesystem in mainline sets the BIO_RW_BARRIER bit,
    > which appears to be the case. Therefore this is really a performance
    > patch that introduces a new internal API.

    I've said this to you 3 times now I think, I don't think you understand
    what I mean with 'correctness issue'. There IS a correctness issue, in
    that drives ship with write back caching enabled. The fs assumes that
    once wait_on_buffer() returns, the data is on disk. Which is false, can
    remain false for quite a long number of seconds.

    So let me state again that this is NOT a performance patch. I've never
    considered it a performance patch, there are no performance gains with
    the patch I posted. It is purely a data integrity issue. I don't know
    how I can state this any clearer than I already have...

    There are possibilities for performance gains in the _future_, that's
    just an added _future_ bonus.

    > It seems to me there are a few unresolved issues with the barrier API. It

    I agree.

    > needs to be clearly stated that only write barriers are supported, not read
    > or read/write barriers, if that is in fact the intention. Assuming it is,
    > then BIOs with read barriers need to be failed.

    read barriers can be just as easily supported, I still think that the
    notion of read/write barriers is something you are inventing that I
    don't see any practical use for. So I wont expand on that at all. From
    my point of view, a read barrier is simply an io scheduler barrier. The
    drive/driver never sees that bit. But it is 100% expressable with the
    current logic.

    > The current BIO API provides no way to express a rw barrier, only read
    > barriers and write barriers (the combination of direction bit and
    > barrier bit indicates the barrier type). This is minor but it but how
    > nice it would be if the API was either orthogonal or there was a clear
    > explanation of why RW barriers never make sense. And if they don't,
    > why read barriers do make sense. Another possible wart is that the
    > API doesn't allow for a read barrier carried by a write BIO or a write
    > barrier carried by a read BIO. From a practical point of view the
    > only immediate use we have for barriers is to accelerate journal
    > writes and everything else comes under the heading of R&D. It would
    > help if the code clearly reflected that modest goal.

    Please come up with at least pseudo-rational exampes for why this would
    ever be needed, I refuse to design API's based on loose whims or ideas.
    The API is "designed" for the practical use of today and what I assumed
    would be useful within reason, that's as far as I think it makes sense
    to go. To bend the API for a doctored example such as 'rw barrier' is
    stupid imho.

    > The BIO barrier scheme doesn't mesh properly with your proposed
    > QUEUE_ORDERED_* scheme. It seems to me that what you want is just
    > QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE and QUEUE_ORDERED_WRITE. Is there any case where
    > the distinction between a tag based implemenation versus a flush
    > matters to high level code?

    The difference comes from the early reiser implementation in 2.4, I'm
    sure Chris can expand on that. I think it's long gone though, and it's
    just an over sight on my part that the ORDERED_TAG is still there. It
    will go.

    > Also, the blk_queue_ordered function isn't a sufficient interface to
    > enable the functionality at a high level, a filesystem also needs a
    > way to know whether barriers are supported or not, short of just
    > submitting a barrier request and seeing if it fails.

    Why? Sometimes the only reliable way to detect whether you can support
    barrier writes or not is to issue one. So I can't really help you there.

    > The high level interface needs to be able to handled stacked devices,
    > i.e., device mapper, but not just device mapper. Barriers have to be
    > supported by all the devices in the stack, not just the top or bottom
    > one. I don't have a concrete suggestion on what the interface should
    > be just now.

    I completely agree. And I'm very open to patches correcting that issue,

    > The point of this is, there still remain a number of open issues with
    > this patch, no doubt more than just the ones I touched on. Though it
    > is clearly headed in the right direction, I'd suggest holding off
    > during the stability freeze and taking the needed time to get it
    > right.

    You touched on 1 valid point, the md/dm issue. That goes doubly for the
    2.4 version (that we don't need to care more about). And I agree with
    you there, it needs to be done. And feel free to knock yourself out.
    It's not a trivial issue.

    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 13:58    [W:0.027 / U:0.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site