Re: [RFC] relaxed barrier semantics

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

 



On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:01:53PM +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> IMHO, all is needed are:

What we need first is a simple interface that

 a) guarantees data integrity
 b) doesn't cause massive slowdowns

and then we can optimize it later.

What we absolutely don't need is a large number of different
interfaces that no one understands and that all are buggy in some way.

> >Now the fsync in XFS looks like this:
> >
> >1) write out all the data blocks using WRITE
> >2) wait for these to finish
> >3) propagate any I/O error to the inode so we can pick them up
> >4) update the inode size in the shadow in-memory structure
> >5) start a transaction to log the inode size
> >6) flush the write cache to make sure the data really is on disk
> 
> Here should be "6.1) wait for it to finish"

yes

> which can be eliminated if 
> requests sent ordered, correct?

not really - if the cache flush returns we shouldn't even send the log
update.

--
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


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux