[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/5] virtio_blk: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Christoph Hellwig <hch lst de>
- Cc: tytso mit edu, linux-scsi vger kernel org, mst redhat com, jaxboe fusionio com, jack suse cz, rusty rustcorp com au, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-raid vger kernel org, linux-ide vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, James Bottomley suse de, konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, vst vlnb net, rwheeler redhat com, swhiteho redhat com, chris mason oracle com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/5] virtio_blk: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:17:15 +0200
Hello,
On 08/16/2010 08:33 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:52:00PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> From: Tejun Heo <tj kernle org>
>>
>> Remove now unused REQ_HARDBARRIER support and implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA
>> support instead. A new feature flag VIRTIO_BLK_F_FUA is added to
>> indicate the support for FUA.
>
> I'm not sure it's worth it. The pure REQ_FLUSH path works not and is
> well tested with kvm/qemu. We can still easily add a FUA bit, and
> even a pre-flush bit if the protocol roundtrips matter in real life
> benchmarking.
Hmmm... the underlying storage could be md/dm RAIDs in which case FUA
should be cheaper than FLUSH.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]