On Wed, 5 Oct 2022, Cobra_Fast wrote: > Greetings, > > I am using bcache in conjunction with SnapRAID, which works on the FS-level, > and I have noticed that parity syncs as well as scrubs read data from the > cache rather than the backing device. This probably not a problem when > creating parity for new files, but could be a problem when running scrubs, as > the parity is never checked against data on disk since bcache hides it. Interesting. > I would therefore very much like a cache_mode that would bypass any and all > reads, that can be enabled for the duration of a SnapRAID sync or scrub. For > writes I suppose this mode should act the same as "none". > > This opportunity could be taken to verify data on cache as well; read from > both backing and cache and invalidate the cache page if it differs from the > backing data, while satisfying the actual read from backing in any case. assuming that one or the other is correct... I'm not sure bcache could tell which block is valid, and SnapRAID doesn't know about the lldevs. > Perhaps something like this is already possible and I'm just not seeing it? > I know I can detach backing devices, but to my understanding that also > invalidates all its cached pages and I would obviously like to keep them for > this purpose. Well you can only read-validate pages that are not dirty...if its dirty you _must_ read from cache for consistency. You could put it in write_around mode and wait for dirty_bytes to be 0, but I think it will still read from the cache if the page is hot. Detach sounds like the only option at the moment to get what you're seeking. Future work could include adding a `readaround` to /sys/block/bcache0/bcache/cache_mode, but it would still have to read from the cache if dirty. Or maybe if `readaround` hits a dirty block it evicts it and re-reads the backing device? But that sounds messy and slow. Maybe you could assume that if the cache is correct then the backing device is correct and a verify atop of bcache means that bcache is consistent, independent of the lower layers. This is certainly true for dirty blocks, and probably for clean (in-cache) blocks too. -Eric > > Looking forward to your opinions, > Best regards, > Andy > >
