Hello, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Would that be very different from issuing barrier and not waiting for >> its completion? For ATA and SCSI, we'll have to flush write back cache >> anyway, so I don't see how we can get performance advantage by >> implementing separate WRITE_ORDERED. I think zero-length barrier >> (haven't looked at the code yet, still recovering from jet lag :-) can >> serve as genuine barrier without the extra write tho. > > As always, it depends :-) > > If you are doing pure flush barriers, then there's no difference. Unless > you only guarantee ordering wrt previously submitted requests, in which > case you can eliminate the post flush. > > If you are doing ordered tags, then just setting the ordered bit is > enough. That is different from the barrier in that we don't need a flush > of FUA bit set. Hmmm... I'm feeling dense. Zero-length barrier also requires only one flush to separate requests before and after it (haven't looked at the code yet, will soon). Can you enlighten me? Thanks. -- tejun -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
