linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C7269E9.9070304@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:30:33 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
CC:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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, hare@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with
 sequenced flush

Hello,

On 08/20/2010 05:18 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 08/20/2010 09:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> FYI: here's a little writeup to document the new cache flushing scheme,
>> intended to replace Documentation/block/barriers.txt.  Any good
>> suggestion for a filename in the kernel tree?
>>
> 
> I was thinking that we might be better off using the "durable
> writes" term more since it is well documented (at least in the
> database world, where it is the "D" in ACID properties).  Maybe
> "durable_writes_support.txt" ?

The term is very foreign to people outside of enterprise / database
loop.  writeback-cache.txt or write-cache-control.txt sounds good
enough to me.

>> The Linux block layer provides a two simple mechanism that lets filesystems
>> control the caching behavior of the storage device.  These mechanisms are
>> a forced cache flush, and the Force Unit Access (FUA) flag for requests.
>>
> 
> Should we mention that users can also disable the write cache on the
> target device?
> 
> It might also be worth mentioning that storage needs to be properly
> configured - i.e., an internal hardware RAID card with battery
> backing needs can expose itself as a writethrough cache *only if* it
> actually has control over all of the backend disks and can
> flush/disable their write caches.

It might be useful to give several example configurations with
different cache configurations.  I don't have much experience with
battery backed arrays but aren't they suppose to report write through
cache automatically?

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/