From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, edmudama@gmail.com,
Nicolas.Mailhot@LaPoste.net
Subject: Re: libata FUA revisited
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:20:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45D1D72D.9020509@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45D104F3.7040602@shaw.ca>
Hello, Robert.
Robert Hancock wrote:
[--snip--]
> On the NCQ side, I think it's pretty safe to assume that all controllers
> will handle it. Obviously I've verified it with sata_nv (at least that
> it doesn't blow up obviously), and the other two NCQ drivers we have,
> ahci and sata_sil24 just feed raw FIS data into the controller so there
> should be no issue with not supporting it.
FWIW, ICH6/7/8 ahci's clear PMP field when transmitting FIS. The reason
why I'm hesitant is because there is no way to tell whether the FUA bit
got honored or ignored. With extra opcode, it's okay because barrier
explicitly fails but if NCQ FUA is not supported, it will succeed
silently as normal write. Everything will be okay generally but the
barrier is done incorrectly and on a really bad day it will lead to
journal corruption.
So, actually, I was thinking about *always* using the non-NCQ FUA
opcode. As currently implemented, FUA request is always issued by
itself, so NCQ doesn't make any difference there. So, I think it would
be better to turn on FUA on driver-by-driver basis whether the
controller supports NCQ or not.
Well, I might be being too paranoid but silent FUA failure would be
really hard to diagnose if that ever happens (and I'm fairly certain
that it will on some firmwares).
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-02-13 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.S80SRyQbD/hm4SxliPUKU88BaCo@ifi.uio.no>
2007-02-12 5:47 ` libata FUA revisited Robert Hancock
[not found] ` <fa.Q/csgyCHkAsD84yi+bN78H1WNNM@ifi.uio.no>
2007-02-13 0:23 ` Robert Hancock
2007-02-13 15:20 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2007-02-14 0:07 ` Robert Hancock
2007-02-14 0:50 ` Tejun Heo
2007-02-15 18:00 ` Jens Axboe
2007-02-19 19:46 ` Robert Hancock
2007-02-21 8:37 ` Tejun Heo
2007-02-21 8:46 ` Jens Axboe
2007-02-21 8:57 ` Tejun Heo
2007-02-21 9:01 ` Jens Axboe
2007-02-22 22:44 ` Ric Wheeler
2007-02-22 22:40 ` Ric Wheeler
2007-02-21 14:06 ` Robert Hancock
2007-02-22 22:34 ` Ric Wheeler
2007-02-23 0:04 ` Robert Hancock
2007-02-21 8:44 ` Jens Axboe
2007-02-12 3:25 Robert Hancock
2007-02-12 8:31 ` Tejun Heo
2007-02-16 18:14 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=45D1D72D.9020509@gmail.com \
--to=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=Nicolas.Mailhot@LaPoste.net \
--cc=edmudama@gmail.com \
--cc=hancockr@shaw.ca \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.