Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, May 31 2007, Phillip Susi wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
No Stephan is right, the barrier is both an ordering and integrity
constraint. If a driver completes a barrier request before that request
and previously submitted requests are on STABLE storage, then it
violates that principle. Look at the code and the various ordering
options.
I am saying that is the wrong thing to do. Barrier should be about
ordering only. So long as the order they hit the media is maintained,
the order the requests are completed in can change. barrier.txt bears
But you can't guarentee ordering without flushing the data out as well.
It all depends on the type of cache on the device, of course. If you
look at the ordinary sata/ide drive with write back caching, you can't
just issue the requests in order and pray that the drive cache will make
it to platter.
If you don't have write back caching, or if the cache is battery backed
and thus guarenteed to never be lost, maintaining order is naturally
enough.
Do I misread this? If ordered doesn't reach all the way to the platter
then there will be failure modes which result in order not preserved.
Battery backed cache doesn't prevect failures between the cache and the
platter.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
