linux-kernel - range-based cache flushing (was Re: Linux 2.6.29)

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: <49D11806.80408@garzik.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:05:42 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, David Rees <drees76@...il.com>,
	Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: range-based cache flushing (was Re: Linux 2.6.29)

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:25 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Ric Wheeler wrote:> And, as I am sure that you do know, to add insult 
>>> to injury, FLUSH_CACHE
>>>> is per device (not file system).

>>>> When you issue an fsync() on a disk with multiple partitions, you 
>>>> will flush the data for all of its partitions from the write cache....
>>> SCSI'S SYNCHRONIZE CACHE command already accepts an (LBA, length) 
>>> pair.  We could make use of that.

>>> And I bet we could convince T13 to add FLUSH CACHE RANGE, if we could 
>>> demonstrate clear benefit.

>> How well supported is this in SCSI?  Can we try it out with a commodity 
>> SAS drive?

> What do you mean by well supported?  The way the SCSI standard is
> written, a device can do a complete cache flush when a range flush is
> requested and still be fully standards compliant.  There's no easy way
> to tell if it does a complete cache flush every time other than by
> taking the firmware apart (or asking the manufacturer).

Quite true, though wondering aloud...

How difficult would it be to pass the "lower-bound" LBA to SYNCHRONIZE 
CACHE, where "lower bound" is defined as the lowest sector in the range 
of sectors to be flushed?

That seems like a reasonable optimization -- it gives the drive an easy 
way to skip sync'ing sectors lower than the lower-bound LBA, if it is 
capable.  Otherwise, a standards-compliant firmware will behave as you 
describe, and do what our code currently expects today -- a full cache 
flush.

This seems like a good way to speed up cache flush [on SCSI], while also 
perhaps experimenting with a more fine-grained way to pass down write 
barriers to the device.

Not a high priority thing overall, but OTOH, consider the case of 
placing your journal at the end of the disk.  You could then issue a 
cache flush with a non-zero starting offset:

	SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (max sectors - JOURNAL_SIZE, ~0)

That should be trivial even for dumb disk firmwares to optimize.

	Jeff

--
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/