Re: Device loses barrier support (was: Fixed patch for simplebarriers.)

[Mikulas Patocka]

> > > > finished after the 2nd write) and you are in an interrupt context, where 
> > > > you can't reissue -EOPNOTSUPP request. So what do you want to do?
> > > 
> > > The barrier aware file systems I know of just resubmit synchronously when 
> > > a barrier fails.
> > 
> > ... and produce structure corruption for certain period in time, because 
> > the writes meant to be ordered are submitted unordered.
> 
> No there is nothing unordered. The file system path typically looks like
> 
> commit of a transaction
> 	if (i have never seen a barrier failing) 
> 		write block with barrier
> 		if (EOPNOTSUPP) {
> 			record failure
> 			submit synchronously
> 		}
> 	} else
> 		submit synchronously
> 

If you view this as a "right" way of using barriers, then you can drop 
barrier support at all and replace this code sequence with:

 flush disk cache
 submit write synchronously
 flush disk cache

--- because synchronous barriers bring you no performance advantage over 
the above sequence.

> So if a pvmove barrier fails it will just submit synchronously.
> 
> The write block with barrier bit varies, jbd/gfs2 do it synchronously
> too and xfs does it asynchronously (with io done callbacks), but

And how does xfs preserve write ordering, if the barrier asynchronously 
fails with -EOPNOTSUPP and there are other writes submitted after the 
barrier?

> in both cases they handle an EOPNOTSUPP comming out in the final
> io done.

Mikulas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/