On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Nikos Tsironis wrote:
> On 12/6/19 12:34 AM, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Nikos Tsironis wrote:
> > > On 12/4/19 10:17 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 04 2019 at 2:58pm -0500,
> > > > Eric Wheeler <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Nikos Tsironis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The thin provisioning target maintains per thin device mappings that
> > > > > > map
> > > > > > virtual blocks to data blocks in the data device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When we write to a shared block, in case of internal snapshots, or
> > > > > > provision a new block, in case of external snapshots, we copy the
> > > > > > shared
> > > > > > block to a new data block (COW), update the mapping for the relevant
> > > > > > virtual block and then issue the write to the new data block.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suppose the data device has a volatile write-back cache and the
> > > > > > following sequence of events occur:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those with NV caches, can the data disk flush be optional (maybe
> > > > > as a
> > > > > table flag)?
> > > >
> > > > IIRC block core should avoid issuing the flush if not needed. I'll have
> > > > a closer look to verify as much.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For devices without a volatile write-back cache block core strips off
> > > the REQ_PREFLUSH and REQ_FUA bits from requests with a payload and
> > > completes empty REQ_PREFLUSH requests before entering the driver.
> > >
> > > This happens in generic_make_request_checks():
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Filter flush bio's early so that make_request based
> > > * drivers without flush support don't have to worry
> > > * about them.
> > > */
> > > if (op_is_flush(bio->bi_opf) &&
> > > !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_WC, &q->queue_flags)) {
> > > bio->bi_opf &= ~(REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA);
> > > if (!nr_sectors) {
> > > status = BLK_STS_OK;
> > > goto end_io;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > If I am not mistaken, it all depends on whether the underlying device
> > > reports the existence of a write back cache or not.
> > >
> > > You could check this by looking at /sys/block/<device>/queue/write_cache
> > > If it says "write back" then flushes will be issued.
> > >
> > > In case the sysfs entry reports a "write back" cache for a device with a
> > > non-volatile write cache, I think you can change the kernel's view of
> > > the device by writing to this entry (you could also create a udev rule
> > > for this).
> > >
> > > This way you can set the write cache as write through. This will
> > > eliminate the cache flushes issued by the kernel, without altering the
> > > device state (Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.rst).
> >
> > Interesting, I'll remember that. I think this is a documentation bug, isn't
> > this backwards:
> > 'This means that it might not be safe to toggle the setting from
> > "write back" to "write through", since that will also eliminate
> > cache flushes issued by the kernel.'
> > [https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.rst]
> >
> >
>
> If a device has a volatile cache then the write_cache sysfs entry will
> be "write back" and we have to issue flushes to the device. In all other
> cases write_cache will be "write through".
Forgive my misunderstanding, but if I have a RAID controller with a cache
and BBU with the RAID volume set to write-back mode in the controller, are
you saying that the sysfs entry should show "write through"? I had always
understood that it was safe to disable flushes with a non-volatile cache
and a non-volatile cache is called a write-back cache.
It is strange to me that this terminology in the kernel would be backwards
from how it is expressed in a RAID controller. Incidentally, I have an
Avago MegaRAID 9460 with 2 volumes. The first volume (sda) is in
write-back mode and the second volume is write-through. In both cases
sysfs reports "write through":
[root@hv1-he ~]# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/write_cache
write through
[root@hv1-he ~]# cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/write_cache
write through
This is running 4.19.75, so we can at least say that the 9460 does not
support proper representation of the VD cache mode in sysfs, but which is
correct? Should it not be that the sysfs entry reports the same cache mode
of the RAID controller?
-Eric
>
> It's not safe to toggle write_cache from "write back" to "write through"
> because this stops the kernel from sending flushes to the device, but
> the device will continue caching the writes. So, in case something goes
> wrong, you might lose your writes or end up with some kind of
> corruption.
>
> > How does this work with stacking blockdevs? Does it inherit from the
> > lower-level dev? If an upper-level is misconfigured, would a writeback at
> > higher levels would clear the flush for lower levels?
> >
>
> As Mike already mentioned in another reply to this thread, the device
> capabilities are stacked up when each device is created and are
> inherited from component devices.
>
> The logic for device stacking is implemented in various functions in
> block/blk-settings.c (blk_set_stacking_limits(), blk_stack_limits(),
> etc.), which are used also by DM core in dm-table.c to set the
> capabilities of DM devices.
>
> If an upper layer device reports a "write back" cache then flushes will
> be issued to it by the kernel, no matter what the capabilities of the
> underlying devices are.
>
> Normally an upper layer device would report a "write back" cache if at
> least one underlying device supports flushes. But, some DM devices
> report a "write back" cache irrespective of the underlying devices,
> e.g., dm-thin, dm-clone, dm-cache. This is required so they can flush
> their own metadata. They then pass the flush request down to the
> underlying device and rely on block core to do the right thing. Either
> actually send the flush to the device, if it has a volatile cache, or
> complete it immediately.
>
> Nikos
>
> > --
> > Eric Wheeler
> >
> >
> >
> > > Nikos
> > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > >
>
>
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
