[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.
On Fri, Jun 01 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday June 1, wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:31:21PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> > > David Chinner wrote:
> > > >That sounds like a good idea - we can leave the existing
> > > >WRITE_BARRIER behaviour unchanged and introduce a new WRITE_ORDERED
> > > >behaviour that only guarantees ordering. The filesystem can then
> > > >choose which to use where appropriate....
> > >
> > > So what if you want a synchronous write, but DON'T care about the order?
> >
> > submit_bio(WRITE_SYNC, bio);
> >
> > Already there, already used by XFS, JFS and direct I/O.
> Are you sure?
> You seem to be saying that WRITE_SYNC causes the write to be safe on
> media before the request returns. That isn't my understanding.
> I think (from comments near the definition and a quick grep through
> the code) that WRITE_SYNC expedites the delivery of the request
> through the elevator, but doesn't do anything special about getting it
> onto the media.
> It essentially say "Submit this request now, don't wait for more
> request to bundle with it for better bandwidth utilisation"

That is exactly right. WRITE_SYNC doesn't give any integrity guarentees,
it's just makes sure it goes straight through the io scheduler.

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: 2007-06-01 08:15    [W:0.104 / U:2.308 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site