[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100817131309.GA2963@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:13:09 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, 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, neilb@...e.de,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mst@...hat.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nle.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:33:52AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > That logic wasn't just about retries (at least not in the latest
> > kernel). With commit 708e929513502fb0 the -EOPNOTSUPP checking also
> > serves to optimize the barrier+discard case (when discards aren't
> > supported).
>
> With the patch applied, there's no second flush. Those requests would
> now be REQ_FLUSH + REQ_DISCARD. The first can't be avoided anyway and
> there won't be the second flush to begin with, so I don't think this
> worsens anything.
In fact the pre-flush is completely superflous for discards, but that's a
separate discussion and should not be changed as part of this patchset but
rather explicitly.
--
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