lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH linux-2.6-block:post-2.6.15 08/10] blk: update IDE to use new blk_ordered
On 11/22/05, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:59:28PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

> > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111795127124020&w=2
> > >
> > > Rationales
> > >
> > > * The actual barrier IO request is issued as a part of ordered sequence.
> > > When any part of this sequence fails (any of leading flush, barrier IO
> > > or post flush), the whole sequence should be considered to have failed.
> > >
> > > e.g. if leading flush fails, there's no point in reporting partial or
> > > full success of barrier IO. Ditto for tailing flush. We can special
> > > case when only part of barrier IO fails and report partial barrier
> > > success, but 1. benefits are doubtful 2. even if it's implemented, it
> > > wouldn't work (see next rationale)
> > >
> > > * Barrier requests are not mergeable. ie. Each barrier bio is turned
> > > into one barrier request and partially completing the request doesn't
> > > result in any successfully completed bio.
> >
> > However your flush request can fail on the sector _completely_
> > unrelated to the barrier request so in this case old code worked
> > differently. Anyway I'm fine with this change (previous logic was
> > too complicated).
>
> Hmmm... Ordered sequence should fail even when flush request fails on
> a completely unrelated to the barrier request. The barrier request
> must make sure that all requests issued prior to it have made to the
> physical medium successfully.
>
> Anyways, you're right in that it acts differently from the original
> code and it should be noted in the patch description. I'll update the
> patch description.

Thanks.

> > > * SCSI doesn't handle partial completion of barrier IOs.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>-
> > > >>-static int idedisk_prepare_flush(request_queue_t *q, struct request *rq)
> > > >>-{
> > > >>- ide_drive_t *drive = q->queuedata;
> > > >>-
> > > >>- if (!drive->wcache)
> > > >>- return 0;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What does happen if somebody disables drive->wcache later?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing out. I've moved ordered configuration into
> > > write_cache such that ordered is reconfigured when write_cache changes.
> > > There can be in-flight barrier requests which are inconsistent with the
> > > newly updated setting, but 1. it's not too unfair to assume that user is
> > > responsible for that synchronization 2. the original implementation had
> > > the same issue 3. the consequence is not catastrophic.
> >
> > The consequence could be increased number of bugreports about
> > failed IDE commands which wasn't the case with !drive->wcache check
> > in place - please leave as it was.
>
> Ordered requests are processed in the following order.
>
> 1. barrier bio reaches blk queue
>
> 2. barrier req queued in order
>
> 3. when barrier req reaches the head of the request queue, it gets
> interpreted into preflush-barrier-postflush requests sequence
> and queued. ->prepare_flush_fn is called in this step.
>
> 4. When all three requests complete, the ordered sequence ends.
>
> Adding !drive->wcache test to idedisk_prepare_flush, which in turn
> requires adding ->prepare_flush_fn error handling to blk ordered
> handling, prevents flushes for barrier requests between step#1 and

Why for !drive->wcache flush can't be consider as successful
like it was before these changes...

> step#3. We can still have flush reqeuests between #3 and #4 after
> wcache is turned off.

ditto

> Please also note that any of above happens only if a user turns off
> ->wcache setting while a fs is actively performing a barrier.
>
> I'm not sure the benefit justifies added complexity. Do you still
> think adding ->wcache test is necessary?
>
> >
> > > >> static void ide_cacheflush_p(ide_drive_t *drive)
> > > >>@@ -1034,6 +993,8 @@ static int ide_disk_remove(struct device
> > > >> struct ide_disk_obj *idkp = drive->driver_data;
> > > >> struct gendisk *g = idkp->disk;
> > > >>
> > > >>+ blk_queue_ordered(drive->queue, QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE, NULL, 0);
> > > >>+
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't this be done in ide_disk_release()?
> > >
> > > Hmmm... The thing is that, AFAIK, requests are not supposed to be issued
> > > after ->remove is called (->remove is called only on module unload
> > > unless hardware is hot-unplugged and HL driver cannot be unloaded while
> > > it's still opened). I think that's why both sd and ide-disk issue the
> > > last cache flush in ->remove callbacks but not in ->release.
> >
> > Are you sure? I think that only calling del_gendisk() assures you
> > that there won't be outstanding fs requests?
> >
> > I have also noticed bug in ide_disk_remove() - ide_cacheflush_p()
> > should be called after del_gendisk() - I will fix it later.
> >
> > BTW Nowadays you can dynamically dettach/attach driver from/to
> > device using sysfs interface.
>
> I agree that it should go into ->release, but I am still a bit scared
> about issuing commands in ->release (it might access some data
> structure which might be gone by then). Also, the correct order seems
> to be 'turning off ordered' and then 'perform the last cache flush'.
> So, how about adding blk_queue_ordered right above the last
> ide_cacheflush_p() now and move both to ->release in a separate patch
> for both IDE and SCSI?

Not needed, when ide-disk is fixed to call del_gendisk() after
ide_cacheflush_p(), we can add blk_queue_orderer() before
the latter and then everything should be OK.

Thanks,
Bartlomiej
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-22 09:39    [W:0.071 / U:17.252 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site