From: Jens Axboe <email@example.com> To: Robert Hancock <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Tejun Heo <email@example.com>, linux-kernel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Nicolas.Mailhot@LaPoste.net, Jeff Garzik <email@example.com>, Alan Cox <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mark Lord <email@example.com> Subject: Re: libata FUA revisited Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:44:27 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20070221084427.GA3924@kernel.dk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <45D9FE7B.firstname.lastname@example.org> On Mon, Feb 19 2007, Robert Hancock wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >But we can't really change that, since you need the cache flushed before > >issuing the FUA write. I've been advocating for an ordered bit for > >years, so that we could just do: > > > >3. w/FUA+ORDERED > > > >normal operation -> barrier issued -> write barrier FUA+ORDERED > > -> normal operation resumes > > > >So we don't have to serialize everything both at the block and device > >level. I would have made FUA imply this already, but apparently it's not > >what MS wanted FUA for, so... The current implementations take the FUA > >bit (or WRITE FUA) as a hint to boost it to head of queue, so you are > >almost certainly going to jump ahead of already queued writes. Which we > >of course really do not. > > I think that FUA was designed for a different use case than what Linux > is using barriers for currently. The advantage with FUA is when you have [snip] Yes that's pretty obvious, my point is just that FUA+ORDERED would be a nice thing to have for us. > >I'm not too nervous about the FUA write commands, I hope we can safely > >assume that if you set the FUA supported bit in the id AND the write fua > >command doesn't get aborted, that FUA must work. Anything else would > >just be an immensely stupid implementation. NCQ+FUA is more tricky, I > >agree that it being just a command bit does make it more likely that it > >could be ignored. And that is indeed a danger. Given state of NCQ in > >early firmware drives, I would not at all be surprised if the drive > >vendors screwed that up too. > > > >But, since we don't have the ordered bit for NCQ/FUA anyway, we do need > >to drain the drive queue before issuing the WRITE/FUA. And at that point > >we may as well not use the NCQ command, just go for the regular non-NCQ > >FUA write. I think that should be safe. > > Aside from the issue above, as I mentioned elsewhere, lots of NCQ drives > don't support non-NCQ FUA writes.. "Lots" meaning how many? All the ones I have here support FUA. -- Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-02-21 8:49 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 ` 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 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 [this message] 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=20070221084427.GA3924@kernel.dk \ --email@example.com \ --cc=Nicolas.Mailhot@LaPoste.net \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: libata FUA revisited' \ /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
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.