Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush

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

 



On 2010-08-23 16:08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> The problem purely exists on arrays that report write back cache enabled
>> AND don't implement SYNC_CACHE as a noop. Do any of them exist, or are
>> they purely urban legend?
> 
> I haven't seen it.  I don't care particularly about this case, but once
> it a while people want to disable flushing for testing or because they
> really don't care.
> 
> What about adding a sysfs attribue to every request_queue that allows
> disabling the cache flushing feature?  Compared to the barrier option
> this controls the feature at the right level and makes it available
> to everyone instead of beeing duplicated.  After a while we can then
> simply ignore the barrier/nobarrier options.

Agree, that would be fine.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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