[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] Barriers still not passing on simple dm devices...



On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I've noticed that on 2.6.29-rcX, with Andi's patch
> > > > (ab4c1424882be9cd70b89abf2b484add355712fa, dm: support barriers on
> > > > simple devices) barriers are still getting rejected on these simple devices.
> > > > 
> > > > The problem is in __generic_make_request():
> > > > 
> > > >                 if (bio_barrier(bio) && bio_has_data(bio) &&
> > > >                     (q->next_ordered == QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE)) {
> > > >                         err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > >                         goto end_io;
> > > >                 }
> > > > 
> > > > and dm isn't flagging its queue as supporting ordered writes, so it's
> > > > rejected here.
> > > > 
> > > > Doing something like this:
> > > > 
> > > > + if (t->barriers_supported)
> > > > +         blk_queue_ordered(q, QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN, NULL);
> > > > 
> > > > somewhere in dm (I stuck it in dm_table_set_restrictions() - almost
> > > > certainly the wrong thing to do) did get my dm-linear device to mount
> > > > with xfs, w/o xfs complaining that its mount-time barrier tests failed.
> > > > 
> > > > So what's the right way around this?  What should dm (or md for that
> > > > matter) advertise on their queues about ordered-ness?  Should there be
> > > > some sort of "QUEUE_ORDERED_PASSTHROUGH" or something to say "this level
> > > > doesn't care, ask the next level" or somesuch?  Or should it inherit the
> > > > flag from the next level down?  Ideas?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Eric
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > dm-devel mailing list
> > > > dm-devel redhat com
> > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
> > > 
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > This is misdesign in generic bio layer and it should be fixed there. I 
> > > think it is blocking barrier support in md-raid1 too. Jens, pls apply the 
> > > attached patch.
> > > 
> > > Mikulas
> > > 
> > > ----
> > > 
> > > Move test for not-supported barriers to __make_request.
> > > 
> > > This test prevents barriers from being dispatched to device mapper
> > > and md.
> > > 
> > > This test is sensible only for drivers that use requests (such as disk
> > > drivers), not for drivers that use bios.
> > > 
> > > It is better to fix it in generic code than to make workaround for it
> > > in device mapper and md.
> > 
> > So you audited any ->make_request_fn style driver and made sure they
> > rejected barriers?
> 
> I didn't.
> 
> If you grep for it, you get:
> 
> ./arch/powerpc/sysdev/axonram.c:
> doesn't reject barriers, but it is not needed, it ends all bios in 
> make_request routine
> 
> ./drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c:
> * doesn't reject barriers, should be modified to do so
> 
> ./drivers/block/brd.c
> doesn't reject barriers, doesn't need to, ends all bios in make_request
> 
> ./drivers/block/loop.c:
> doesn't reject barriers, it's ok because it doesn't reorder requests
> 
> ./drivers/block/pktcdvd.c
> * doesn't reject barriers, should be modified to do so
> 
> ./drivers/block/umem.c
> * doesn't reject barriers, I don't know if it reorders requests or not.
> 
> ./drivers/s390/block/xpram.c
> doesn't reject barriers, doesn't need, ends bios immediatelly
> 
> ./drivers/md/raid0.c
> rejects barriers
> 
> ./drivers/md/raid1.c
> supports barriers
> 
> ./drivers/md/raid10.c
> rejects barriers
> 
> ./drivers/md/raid5.c
> rejects barriers
> 
> ./drivers/md/linear.c
> rejects barriers
> 
> ./drivers/md/dm.c
> supports barriers partially

Not reordering is not enough to support the barrier primitive, unless
you always go to the same device and pass the barrier flag down with it.

I think having the check in generic_make_request() is perfectly fine,
even if the value doesn't completely apply to stacked devices. Perhaps
we can add such a value, then. My main point is that barrier support
should be opt-in, not a default thing. Over time we should have support
everywhere, but it needs to be checked, audited, and trusted.

-- 
Jens Axboe


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]