[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C6A458B.5040407@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:17:15 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
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,
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, neilb@...e.de,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mst@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] virtio_blk: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support
Hello,
On 08/16/2010 08:33 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:52:00PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nle.org>
>>
>> Remove now unused REQ_HARDBARRIER support and implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA
>> support instead. A new feature flag VIRTIO_BLK_F_FUA is added to
>> indicate the support for FUA.
>
> I'm not sure it's worth it. The pure REQ_FLUSH path works not and is
> well tested with kvm/qemu. We can still easily add a FUA bit, and
> even a pre-flush bit if the protocol roundtrips matter in real life
> benchmarking.
Hmmm... the underlying storage could be md/dm RAIDs in which case FUA
should be cheaper than FLUSH.
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