[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A8D60C1.6000809@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:42:09 -0400
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support
On 08/20/2009 10:38 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Note that returning consistent data is critical for devices that are
>> used in a RAID group since you will need each RAID block that is used
>> to compute the parity to continue to return the same data until you
>> overwrite it with new data :-)
>>
>> If we have a device that does not support this (or is misconfigured
>> not to do this), we should not use those devices in an MD group & do
>> discard against it...
> ..
>
> Well, that's a bit drastic. But the RAID software should at least
> not issue TRIM commands in ignorance of such.
If the storage can return different data in a sequence of READ requests of the
same sector (with no writes), there is nothing RAID could do. It would see total
garbage...
> Would it still be okay to do the TRIMs when the entire parity stripe
> (across all members) is being discarded? (As opposed to just partial
> data there being dropped)
This should be safe if the MD bitmaps would prevent us from trying to
READ/regenerate parity for that stripe...
ric
--
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