On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 09/01/2010 12:31 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > My recommended approach to this (on non-request-based dm) is to simply let > > the current barrier infrastructure be as it is --- you don't need to > > change it now, you can simply map FUA write to barrier write and FLUSH to > > zero-data barrier --- and it won't cause any data corruption. It will just > > force unneeded I/O queue draining. > > > > Once FLUSH+FUA interface is finalized and committed upstream, we can > > remove that I/O queue draining from dm to improve performance. > > Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The current dm > implementation depends on block layer holding the queue while a > barrier sequence is in progress which the new implementation doesn't > do anymore (the whole point of this conversion BTW). That may be true for request-based dm (I don't know). But bio-based dm doesn't depend on it, I wrote it and I didn't rely on that. Mikulas > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
