[dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

[Bill Davidsen]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>   
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, May 31 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:26:45AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> IOWs, there are two parts to the problem:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 	1 - guaranteeing I/O ordering
>>>>>>>> 	2 - guaranteeing blocks are on persistent storage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now, a single barrier I/O is used to provide both of these
>>>>>>>> guarantees. In most cases, all we really need to provide is 1); the
>>>>>>>> need for 2) is a much rarer condition but still needs to be
>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> if I am understanding it correctly, the big win for barriers is that 
>>>>>>>>> you do NOT have to stop and wait until the data is on persistant 
>>>>>>>>> media before you can continue.
>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> Yes, if we define a barrier to only guarantee 1), then yes this
>>>>>>>> would be a big win (esp. for XFS). But that requires all filesystems
>>>>>>>> to handle sync writes differently, and sync_blockdev() needs to
>>>>>>>> call blkdev_issue_flush() as well....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what do we do here? Do we define a barrier I/O to only provide
>>>>>>>> ordering, or do we define it to also provide persistent storage
>>>>>>>> writeback? Whatever we decide, it needs to be documented....
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> The block layer already has a notion of the two types of barriers, with
>>>>>>> a very small amount of tweaking we could expose that. There's 
>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>> zero reason we can't easily support both types of barriers.
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> That sounds like a good idea - we can leave the existing
>>>>>> WRITE_BARRIER behaviour unchanged and introduce a new WRITE_ORDERED
>>>>>> behaviour that only guarantees ordering. The filesystem can then
>>>>>> choose which to use where appropriate....
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Precisely. The current definition of barriers are what Chris and I came
>>>>> up with many years ago, when solving the problem for reiserfs
>>>>> originally. It is by no means the only feasible approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll add a WRITE_ORDERED command to the #barrier branch, it already
>>>>> contains the empty-bio barrier support I posted yesterday (well a
>>>>> slightly modified and cleaned up version).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>> Wait. Do filesystems expect (depend on) anything but ordering now? Does 
>>>> md? Having users of barriers as they currently behave suddenly getting 
>>>> SYNC behavior where they expect ORDERED is likely to have a negative 
>>>> effect on performance. Or do I misread what is actually guaranteed by 
>>>> WRITE_BARRIER now, and a flush is currently happening in all cases?
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> See the above stuff you quote, it's answered there. It's not a change,
>>> this is how the Linux barrier write has always worked since I first
>>> implemented it. What David and I are talking about is adding a more
>>> relaxed version as well, that just implies ordering.
>>>  
>>>       
>> I was reading the documentation in block/biodoc.txt, which seems to just 
>> say ordered:
>>
>>    1.2.1 I/O Barriers
>>
>>    There is a way to enforce strict ordering for i/os through barriers.
>>    All requests before a barrier point must be serviced before the barrier
>>    request and any other requests arriving after the barrier will not be
>>    serviced until after the barrier has completed. This is useful for
>>    higher
>>    level control on write ordering, e.g flushing a log of committed updates
>>    to disk before the corresponding updates themselves.
>>
>>    A flag in the bio structure, BIO_BARRIER is used to identify a
>>    barrier i/o.
>>    The generic i/o scheduler would make sure that it places the barrier
>>    request and
>>    all other requests coming after it after all the previous requests
>>    in the
>>    queue. Barriers may be implemented in different ways depending on the
>>    driver. A SCSI driver for example could make use of ordered tags to
>>    preserve the necessary ordering with a lower impact on throughput.
>>    For IDE
>>    this might be two sync cache flush: a pre and post flush when
>>    encountering
>>    a barrier write.
>>
>> The "flush" comment is associated with IDE, so it wasn't clear that the 
>> device cache is always cleared to force the data to the platter.
>>     
>
> The above should mention that the ordered tag comment for SCSI assumes
> that the drive uses write through caching. If it does, then an ordered
> tag is enough. If it doesn't, then you need a bit more than that (a post
> flush, after the ordered tag has completed).
>
>   
Thanks, go it.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979