[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4idC=LgkwP+A1GKJ1CWkzUZ_RVBDCVfA3yAL9TNw1zZmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:13:05 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.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
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:09 AM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
I'm not debating the ordering, or that the current implementation is
obviously broken. I'm questioning whether the bio tagged with PREFLUSH
is a barrier for future I/Os. My reading is that it is only a gate for
past writes, and it can be queued. I.e. along the lines of
md_flush_request().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists