On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:07:32AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:17:21PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > To me it looked like as if everything is there and it is just a matter
> > of skipping elevator draining and request queue draining.
>
> The problem is that is just appears to be so. The code blocking only
> the next barrier for tagged writes is there, but in that form it doesn't
> work and probably never did. When I try to use it and debug it I always
> get my post-flush request issued before the barrier request has
> finished.
Are you referring to following piece of code.
if (q->ordered & QUEUE_ORDERED_BY_TAG) {
/* Ordered by tag. Blocking the next barrier is enough. */
if (is_barrier && rq != &q->bar_rq)
*rqp = NULL;
If request queue is ordered by TAG, then isn't it ok to issue post-flush
after barrier immediately (without barrier request to finish). We just
need to block next barrier (a new barrier and not the post-flush request
of current barrier). I thought for tagged queue, controller will take
care of making sure commands finish in order.
If queue is ordered by DRAIN, then I need to worry about first barrier
to finish and then issue post-flush and I thought following should take
care of it.
} else {
/* Ordered by draining. Wait for turn. */
WARN_ON(blk_ordered_req_seq(rq) < blk_ordered_cur_seq(q));
if (blk_ordered_req_seq(rq) > blk_ordered_cur_seq(q))
*rqp = NULL;
}
May be there is a bug somewhere. I will do some debugging.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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
