On 08/17/2010 05:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:44:49AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think the real issue is we're mixing host configuration with guest
visible state.
The last time I proposed to decouple the two you and Avi were heavily
opposed to it..
I wasn't that I can recall.
With O_SYNC, we're causing cache=writethrough to do writethrough
through two layers of the storage heirarchy. I don't think that's
necessary or desirable though.
It's absolutely nessecary if we tell the guest that we do not have
a volatile write cache. Which is the only good reason to use
data=writethrough anyway - except for dealing with old guests that
can't handle volatile writecache it's an absolutely stupid mode of
operation.
I agree, but there's another case: tell the guest that we have a write
cache, use O_DSYNC, but only flush the disk cache on guest flushes.
The reason for this is that if we don't use O_DSYNC the page cache can
grow to huge proportions. While this is allowed by the contract between
virtual drive and guest, guest software and users won't expect a huge
data loss on power fail, only a minor data loss from the last fraction
of a second before the failure.
I believe this can be approximated by mounting the host filesystem with
barrier=0?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
