[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101206180942.GL18195@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:09:42 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Set barrier=0 when block device does not
advertise flush support
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:39:24AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> barrier=0 really means losemydata=1. The plan I discussed with Jens was
> to allow to disable the flush and fua semantics in the block layer, so
> we'll have one new tunable for that, which is documented to causes these
> issues.
Oh. I wasn't aware that anyone was planning to put in a tuning knob for
flush/fua, red warning light or otherwise. What is the name of the tunable,
and when will it appear? Or has it already?
> > picks the safe option by default. However, I'd prefer /proc/mounts not
> > misrepresent the status of flush support, to the best of ext4's knowledge.
>
> That's bullshit. The barrier option has traditionally meant that we
Well then, let's remove the barrier= mount flag altogether. No need for strong
language over a minor issue. :) When I see some patches I will push this
through my testing setup and report back what data I collect.
--D
> sent barrier requests, and now means thatwe send flush+fua requests.
> There's no reason for a warning and option mislabling just because you
> got the most efficient implementation of it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists