[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49h82vevw1.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:08:46 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Weiny\, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio pmem: fix async flush ordering
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 9:26 AM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Remove logic to create child bio in the async flush function which
>> > causes child bio to get executed after parent bio 'pmem_make_request'
>> > completes. This resulted in wrong ordering of REQ_PREFLUSH with the
>> > data write request.
>> >
>> > Instead we are performing flush from the parent bio to maintain the
>> > correct order. Also, returning from function 'pmem_make_request' if
>> > REQ_PREFLUSH returns an error.
>> >
>> > Reported-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
>>
>> There's a slight change in behavior for the error path in the
>> virtio_pmem driver. Previously, all errors from virtio_pmem_flush were
>> converted to -EIO. Now, they are reported as-is. I think this is
>> actually an improvement.
>>
>> I'll also note that the current behavior can result in data corruption,
>> so this should be tagged for stable.
>
> I added that and was about to push this out, but what about the fact
> that now the guest will synchronously wait for flushing to occur. The
> goal of the child bio was to allow that to be an I/O wait with
> overlapping I/O, or at least not blocking the submission thread. Does
> the block layer synchronously wait for PREFLUSH requests?
You *have* to wait for the preflush to complete before issuing the data
write. See the "Explicit cache flushes" section in
Documentation/block/writeback_cache_control.rst.
-Jeff
Powered by blists - more mailing lists