lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 31 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:26:45AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOWs, there are two parts to the problem:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 - guaranteeing I/O ordering
>>>>>>>> 2 - guaranteeing blocks are on persistent storage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now, a single barrier I/O is used to provide both of these
>>>>>>>> guarantees. In most cases, all we really need to provide is 1); the
>>>>>>>> need for 2) is a much rarer condition but still needs to be
>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if I am understanding it correctly, the big win for barriers is that
>>>>>>>>> you do NOT have to stop and wait until the data is on persistant
>>>>>>>>> media before you can continue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, if we define a barrier to only guarantee 1), then yes this
>>>>>>>> would be a big win (esp. for XFS). But that requires all filesystems
>>>>>>>> to handle sync writes differently, and sync_blockdev() needs to
>>>>>>>> call blkdev_issue_flush() as well....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what do we do here? Do we define a barrier I/O to only provide
>>>>>>>> ordering, or do we define it to also provide persistent storage
>>>>>>>> writeback? Whatever we decide, it needs to be documented....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The block layer already has a notion of the two types of barriers, with
>>>>>>> a very small amount of tweaking we could expose that. There's
>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>> zero reason we can't easily support both types of barriers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a good idea - we can leave the existing
>>>>>> WRITE_BARRIER behaviour unchanged and introduce a new WRITE_ORDERED
>>>>>> behaviour that only guarantees ordering. The filesystem can then
>>>>>> choose which to use where appropriate....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely. The current definition of barriers are what Chris and I came
>>>>> up with many years ago, when solving the problem for reiserfs
>>>>> originally. It is by no means the only feasible approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll add a WRITE_ORDERED command to the #barrier branch, it already
>>>>> contains the empty-bio barrier support I posted yesterday (well a
>>>>> slightly modified and cleaned up version).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Wait. Do filesystems expect (depend on) anything but ordering now? Does
>>>> md? Having users of barriers as they currently behave suddenly getting
>>>> SYNC behavior where they expect ORDERED is likely to have a negative
>>>> effect on performance. Or do I misread what is actually guaranteed by
>>>> WRITE_BARRIER now, and a flush is currently happening in all cases?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> See the above stuff you quote, it's answered there. It's not a change,
>>> this is how the Linux barrier write has always worked since I first
>>> implemented it. What David and I are talking about is adding a more
>>> relaxed version as well, that just implies ordering.
>>>
>>>
>> I was reading the documentation in block/biodoc.txt, which seems to just
>> say ordered:
>>
>> 1.2.1 I/O Barriers
>>
>> There is a way to enforce strict ordering for i/os through barriers.
>> All requests before a barrier point must be serviced before the barrier
>> request and any other requests arriving after the barrier will not be
>> serviced until after the barrier has completed. This is useful for
>> higher
>> level control on write ordering, e.g flushing a log of committed updates
>> to disk before the corresponding updates themselves.
>>
>> A flag in the bio structure, BIO_BARRIER is used to identify a
>> barrier i/o.
>> The generic i/o scheduler would make sure that it places the barrier
>> request and
>> all other requests coming after it after all the previous requests
>> in the
>> queue. Barriers may be implemented in different ways depending on the
>> driver. A SCSI driver for example could make use of ordered tags to
>> preserve the necessary ordering with a lower impact on throughput.
>> For IDE
>> this might be two sync cache flush: a pre and post flush when
>> encountering
>> a barrier write.
>>
>> The "flush" comment is associated with IDE, so it wasn't clear that the
>> device cache is always cleared to force the data to the platter.
>>
>
> The above should mention that the ordered tag comment for SCSI assumes
> that the drive uses write through caching. If it does, then an ordered
> tag is enough. If it doesn't, then you need a bit more than that (a post
> flush, after the ordered tag has completed).
>
>
Thanks, go it.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-02 21:59    [W:0.179 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site