lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support
On Mon, Aug 16 2010 at 12:52pm -0400,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernle.org>
>
> This patch converts dm to support REQ_FLUSH/FUA instead of now
> deprecated REQ_HARDBARRIER.

What tree does this patch apply to? I know it doesn't apply to
v2.6.36-rc1, e.g.: http://git.kernel.org/linus/708e929513502fb0

> For bio-based dm,
...
> * -EOPNOTSUPP retry logic dropped.

That logic wasn't just about retries (at least not in the latest
kernel). With commit 708e929513502fb0 the -EOPNOTSUPP checking also
serves to optimize the barrier+discard case (when discards aren't
supported).

> For request-based dm,
>
> * Nothing much changes. It just needs to handle FLUSH requests as
> before. It would be beneficial to advertise FUA capability so that
> it can propagate FUA flags down to member request_queues instead of
> sequencing it as WRITE + FLUSH at the top queue.

Can you expand on that TODO a bit? What is the mechanism to propagate
FUA down to a DM device's members? I'm only aware of propagating member
devices' features up to the top-level DM device's request-queue (not the
opposite).

Are you saying that establishing the FUA capability on the top-level DM
device's request_queue is sufficient? If so then why not make the
change?

> Lightly tested linear, stripe, raid1, snap and crypt targets. Please
> proceed with caution as I'm not familiar with the code base.

This is concerning... if we're to offer more comprehensive review I
think we need more detail on what guided your changes rather than
details of what the resulting changes are.

Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-16 21:07    [W:0.137 / U:2.132 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site