[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Christoph Hellwig <hch lst de>
- Cc: tytso mit edu, linux-scsi vger kernel org, jaxboe fusionio com, jack suse cz, 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] [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:35:54 +0200
Hello,
On 08/17/2010 06:59 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I think we really need all the conversions in one tree, block layer,
> remapping drivers and filesystems.
I don't know. If filesystem changes are really trivial maybe, but
md/dm changes seem a bit too invasive to go through the block tree.
> Btw, I've done the conversion for all filesystems and I'm running tests
> over them now. Expect the series late today or tomorrow.
Cool. :-)
>> I might just resequence it to finish this part of discussion but what
>> does that really buy us? It's not really gonna help bisection.
>> Bisection won't be able to tell anything in higher resolution than
>> "the new implementation doesn't work". If you show me how it would
>> actually help, I'll happily reshuffle the patches.
>
> It's not bisecting to find bugs in the barrier conversion. We can't
> easily bisect it down anyway. The problem is when we try to bisect
> other problems and get into the middle of the series barriers suddenly
> are gone. Which is not very helpful for things like data integrity
> problems in filesystems.
Ah, okay, hmmm.... alright, I'll resequence the patches. If the
filesystem changes can be put into a single tree somehow, we can keep
things mostly working at least for direct devices.
>> IIUC, when any of flushes get DM_ENDIO_REQUEUE (which tells the dm
>> core layer to retry the whole bio later), it trumps all other failures
>> and the bio is retried later. That was why DM_ENDIO_REQUEUE was
>> prioritized over other error codes, which actually is sort of
>> incorrect in that once a FLUSH fails, it _MUST_ be reported to upper
>> layers as FLUSH failure implies data already lost. So,
>> DM_ENDIO_REQUEUE actually should have lower priority than other
>> failures. But, then again, the error codes still need to be
>> prioritized.
>
> I think that's something we better leave to the DM team.
Sure, but we shouldn't be ripping out the code to do that.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]