[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100813114858.GA31937@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:48:58 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: jaxboe@...ionio.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
hch@....de, James.Bottomley@...e.de, tytso@....edu,
chris.mason@...cle.com, swhiteho@...hat.com,
konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp, dm-devel@...hat.com, vst@...b.net,
jack@...e.cz, rwheeler@...hat.com, hare@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush
The patchset looks functionally correct to me, and with a small patch
to make use of WRITE_FUA_FLUSH survives xfstests, and instrumenting the
underlying qemu shows that we actually get the flush requests where we should.
No performance or power fail testing done yet.
But I do not like the transition very much. The new WRITE_FUA_FLUSH
request is exactly what filesystems expect from a current barrier
request, so I'd rather move to that functionality without breaking stuff
inbetween.
So if it was to me I'd keep patches 1, 2, 4 and 5 from your series, than
a main one to relax barrier semantics, then have the renaming patches 7
and 8, and possible keep patch 11 separate from the main implementation
change, and if absolutely also a separate one to introduce REQ_FUA and
REQ_FLUSH in the bio interface, but keep things working while doing
this.
Then we can patches do disable the reiserfs barrier "optimization" as
the very first one, and DM/MD support which I'm currently working on
as the last one and we can start doing the heavy testing.
--
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