From: Jens Axboe <email@example.com> To: Tejun Heo <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Robert Hancock <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>, Ric Wheeler <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dongjun Shin <email@example.com>, Hannes Reinecke <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: libata FUA revisited Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:01:26 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20070221090126.GC3924@kernel.dk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <45DC0983.email@example.com> On Wed, Feb 21 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> [cc'ing Ric, Hannes and Dongjun, Hello. Feel free to drag other people in.] > >> > >> 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. > >> Yeah, I think if we have tagged write command and flush tagged (or > >> barrier tagged) things can be pretty efficient. Again, I'm much more > >> comfortable with separate opcodes for those rather than bits changing > >> the behavior. > > > > ORDERED+FUA NCQ would still be preferable to an NCQ enabled flush > > command, though. > > I think we're talking about two different things here. > > 1. The barrier write (FUA write) combined with flush. I think it would > help improving the performance but I think issuing two commands > shouldn't be too slower than issuing one combined command unless it > causes extra physical activity (moving head, etc...). The command overhead is dwarfed by other factors, agree. > 2. FLUSH currently flushes all writes. If we can mark certain commands > requiring ordering, we can selectively flush or order necessary writes. > (No need to flush 16M buffer all over the disk when only journal needs > barriering) Sure, anything is better than the sledge hammer flush. But my claim is that an ORDERED+FUA enabled write for critical data would be a good approach, and simple in software. > >> Another idea Dongjun talked about while drinking in LSF was ranged > >> flush. Not as flexible/efficient as the previous option but much less > >> intrusive and should help quite a bit, I think. > > > > But that requires extensive tracking, I'm not so sure the implementation > > of that for barriers would be very clean. It'd probably be good for > > fsync, though. > > I was mostly thinking about journal area. Using it for other purposes > would incur a lot of complexity. :-( Yep if it's just for the journal, the range is known and fixed, so the flush range would work nicely there. -- Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-02-21 9:02 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 [this message] 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=20070221090126.GC3924@kernel.dk \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --cc=Nicolas.Mailhot@LaPoste.net \ --email@example.com \ --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 \ --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.