Re: [RFC] relaxed barrier semantics

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 02:38:18PM +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> >   Umm, I don't understand you. I think that fsync in particular is an
> >example where you have to wait and issue cache flush if the drive has
> >volatile write cache. Otherwise you cannot promise to the user data will be
> >really on disk in case of crash. So no ordering helps you.
> 
> Isn't there the second wait for journal update?

Yes.

> A drive can reorder queued SIMPLE requests at any time doesn't matter if 
> it has volatile write caches or not.

I know.

> So, if you expect in-order requests 
> execution (with journal updates you do?), you need to enforce that order 
> either by ORDERED requests or (local) queue draining.

Yes, exactly what I say.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux