linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: reimplement FLUSH/FUA to support merge

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110125225626.GD32261@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:56:26 -0800
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, tytso@....edu,
	shli@...nel.org, neilb@...e.de, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
	jack@...e.cz, snitzer@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kmannth@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	rwheeler@...hat.com, hch@....de, josef@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: reimplement FLUSH/FUA to support merge

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:21:28AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Darrick.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:31:55PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > So, I think it's better to start with something simple and improve it
> > > with actual testing.  If the current simple implementation can match
> > > Darrick's previous numbers, let's first settle the mechanisms.  We can
> > 
> > Yep, the fsync-happy numbers more or less match... at least for 2.6.37:
> > http://tinyurl.com/4q2xeao
> 
> Good to hear.  Thanks for the detailed testing.
> 
> > I'll give 2.6.38-rc2 a try later, though -rc1 didn't boot for me, so these
> > numbers are based on a backport to .37. :(
> 
> Well, there hasn' been any change in the area during the merge window
> anyway, so I think testing on 2.6.37 should be fine.

Well, I gave it a spin on -rc2 with no problems and no significant change in
performance, so:

Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...ibm.com>

> > > I don't really think we should design the whole thing around broken
> > > devices which incorrectly report writeback cache when it need not.
> > > The correct place to work around that is during device identification
> > > not in the flush logic.
> > 
> > elm3a4_sas and elm3c71_extsas advertise writeback cache yet the
> > flush completion times are suspiciously low.  I suppose it could be
> > useful to disable flushes to squeeze out that last bit of
> > performance, though I don't know how one goes about querying the
> > disk array to learn if there's a battery behind the cache.  I guess
> > the current mechanism (admin knob that picks a safe default) is good
> > enough.
> 
> Yeap, that or a blacklist of devices which lie.

Hmm... I don't think a blacklist would work for our arrays, since one can force
them to run with write cache and no battery.  I _do_ have a patch that adds a
sysfs knob to the block layer to drop flush/fua if the admin really really
really wants it, so I'll send that out shortly along with another one to remove
the barrier= mount option from ext4.

(Unless the screams of objection rain from the skies. :))

--D
--
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