[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46613666.7010800@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:20:38 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, david@...g.hm,
Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Bader <Stefan.Bader@...ibm.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems,
and dm/md.
Hello,
Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Would that be very different from issuing barrier and not waiting for
>> its completion? For ATA and SCSI, we'll have to flush write back cache
>> anyway, so I don't see how we can get performance advantage by
>> implementing separate WRITE_ORDERED. I think zero-length barrier
>> (haven't looked at the code yet, still recovering from jet lag :-) can
>> serve as genuine barrier without the extra write tho.
>
> As always, it depends :-)
>
> If you are doing pure flush barriers, then there's no difference. Unless
> you only guarantee ordering wrt previously submitted requests, in which
> case you can eliminate the post flush.
>
> If you are doing ordered tags, then just setting the ordered bit is
> enough. That is different from the barrier in that we don't need a flush
> of FUA bit set.
Hmmm... I'm feeling dense. Zero-length barrier also requires only one
flush to separate requests before and after it (haven't looked at the
code yet, will soon). Can you enlighten me?
Thanks.
--
tejun
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists