linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

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: <20070528183252.GH7653@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 28 May 2007 20:32:52 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
Cc:	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices,  filesystems, and dm/md.


(dunny why you explicitly dropped me off the cc/to list when replying to
my email, hence I missed it for 3 days)

On Fri, May 25 2007, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >A barrier write will include a flush, but it may also use the FUA bit to
> >ensure data is on platter. So the only situation where a fallback from a
> >barrier to flush would be valid, is if the device lied and told you it
> >could do FUA but it could not and that is the reason why the barrier
> >write failed. If that is the case, the block layer should stop using FUA
> >and fallback to flush-write-flush. And if it does that, then there's
> >never a valid reason to switch from using barrier writes to
> >blkdev_issue_flush() since both methods would either both work or both
> >fail.
> 
> IIRC, the FUA bit only forces THAT request to hit the platter before it 
> is completed; it does not flush any previous requests still sitting in 
> the write back queue.  Because all io before the barrier must be on the 
> platter as well, setting the FUA bit on the barrier request means you 
> don't have to follow it with a flush, but you still have to precede it 
> with a flush.

I'm well aware of how FUA works, hence the barrier FUA implementation
does flush and then write-fua. The win compared to flush-write-flush is
just a saved command, essentially.

> >It's not block layer breakage, it's a device issue.
> 
> How isn't it block layer breakage?  If the device does not support 
> barriers, isn't it the job of the block layer ( probably the scheduler ) 
> to fall back to flush-write-flush?

The problem is flush not working, the block layer can't fix that for you
obviously. If it's FUA not working, the block layer should fall back to
flush-write-flush, as they are obviously functionally equivalent.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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