On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 09:06:10AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> I've never really understood why FUA is considered equivalent to a
> barrier. Our barrier semantics are that all I/Os before the barrier
> should be safely on disk after the barrier executes. The FUA semantics
> are that *this write* should be safely on disk after it executes ... it
> can still leave preceding writes in the cache. I can see that if you're
> only interested in metadata that making every metadata write a FUA and
> leaving the cache to sort out data writes does give FS image
> consistency.
>
> How does FUA give us linux barrier semantics?
FUA by itself doesn't.
Think what use cases we have for barriers and/or FUA right now:
- a cache flush. Can only implement as cache flush obviously.
- a barrier flush bio - can be implement as
o cache flush, write, cache flush
o or more efficiently as cache flush, write with FUA bit set
now there is a third use case for O_SYNC, O_DIRECT write which actually
do have FUA-like semantis, that is we only guarantee the I/O is on disk,
but we do not make guarantees about ordering vs earlier writes.
Currently we (as in those few filesystem bothering despite the
VFS/generic helpers making it really hard) implement O_SYNC by:
- doing one or multiple normal writes, and wait on them
- then issue a cache flush - either explicitly blkdev_issue_flush
or implicitly as part of a barrier write for metadata
this could be done more efficiently simply setting the FUA bit on these
requests if we had an API for it. For O_DIRECT should also apply
except that currently we don't even try.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
