Re: [PATCH 2/5] virtio_blk: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support

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

 



Hello,

On 08/16/2010 08:33 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:52:00PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Remove now unused REQ_HARDBARRIER support and implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA
>> support instead.  A new feature flag VIRTIO_BLK_F_FUA is added to
>> indicate the support for FUA.
> 
> I'm not sure it's worth it.  The pure REQ_FLUSH path works not and is
> well tested with kvm/qemu.   We can still easily add a FUA bit, and
> even a pre-flush bit if the protocol roundtrips matter in real life
> benchmarking.

Hmmm... the underlying storage could be md/dm RAIDs in which case FUA
should be cheaper than FLUSH.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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