On Thu, Aug 26 2010 at 9:43pm -0400,
Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> (08/27/10 07:50), Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >> Special casing is necessary because device-mapper may have to
> >> send multiple copies of REQ_FLUSH request to multiple
> >> targets, while normal request is just sent to single target.
> >
> > Yes, request-based DM is meant to have all the same capabilities as
> > bio-based DM. So in theory it should support multiple targets but in
> > practice it doesn't. DM's multipath target is the only consumer of
> > request-based DM and it only ever clones a single flush request
> > (num_flush_requests = 1).
>
> This is correct. But,
>
> > So why not remove all of request-based DM's barrier infrastructure and
> > simply rely on the revised block layer to sequence the FLUSH+WRITE
> > request for request-based DM?
> >
> > Given that we do not have a request-based DM target that requires
> > cloning multiple FLUSH requests its unused code that is delaying DM
> > support for the new FLUSH+FUA work (NOTE: bio-based DM obviously still
> > needs work in this area).
>
> the above mentioned 'special casing' is not a hard part.
> See the attached patch.
Yes, Tejun suggested something like this in one of the threads. Thanks
for implementing it.
But do you agree that the request-based barrier code (added in commit
d0bcb8786) could be reverted given the new FLUSH work?
We no longer need waiting now that ordering isn't a concern. Especially
so given rq-based doesn't support multiple targets. As you know, from
dm_table_set_type:
/*
* Request-based dm supports only tables that have a single target now.
* To support multiple targets, request splitting support is needed,
* and that needs lots of changes in the block-layer.
* (e.g. request completion process for partial completion.)
*/
I think we need to at least benchmark the performance of dm-mpath
without any of this extra, soon to be unnecessary, code.
Maybe my concern is overblown...
> The hard part is discerning the error type for flush failure
> as discussed in the other thread.
> And as Kiyoshi wrote, that's an existing problem so it can
> be worked on as a separate issue than the new FLUSH work.
Right, Mike Christie will be refreshing his patchset that should enable
us to resolve that separate issue.
Thanks,
Mike
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
