[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D26E28.1080203@rtr.ca>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:25:28 -0400
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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>,
chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] block: Add block_flush_device()
Ric Wheeler wrote:
..
> As Mark pointed out, most S-ATA/SAS drives will flush the write cache
> when they see a bus reset so even without barriers, the cache will be
> preserved (or flushed) after a reboot or panic. Power outages are the
> problem barriers/flushes are meant to help with.
..
I still see barriers as a separate issue from flushes.
Flushes are there for power failures and hot-removable devices.
Barriers are there for that, but also for better odds of data integrity
in the even of a filesystem or kernel crash.
Even if I don't want the kernel needlessly flushing my battery-backed
write caches, I still do want the barrier ordering that improves the
odds of filesystem consistency in the event of a kernel crash.
Cheers
--
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