Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/21] loop: use aio to perform io on the underlyingfile

[Dave Kleikamp]

On 04/20/2012 10:52 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
> On 04/20/2012 11:20 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Dave Kleikamp<dave.kleikamp@xxxxxxxxxx>  writes:
>>
>>> On 04/20/2012 09:48 AM, Maxim V. Patlasov wrote:
>>>> On 03/30/2012 07:43 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>>>>> From: Zach Brown<zab@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> This uses the new kernel aio interface to process loopback IO by
>>>>> submitting concurrent direct aio.  Previously loop's IO was serialized
>>>>> by synchronous processing in a thread.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The patch ignores REQ_FLUSH bit of bi_rw. Is it simply overlook?
>>>
>>> Good question. Since the loop device is sending only direct IO requests,
>>> it shouldn't be necessary to explicitly flush page cache, but REQ_FLUSH
>>
>> REQ_FLUSH isn't about the page cache, it's about flushing the volatile
>> disk write cache.  You need to handle that.
> 
> I guess O_DIRECT doesn't routinely issue flushes simply because it's too
> expensive?  Apps that care about consistent IO and O_DIRECT are expected
> to not have writeback caching enabled?  'cause there's no way they're
> issuing syncs themselves.

If we weren't using aio, we might be okay, but we don't know that any
prior asynchronous request has completed.
> 
> So yeah, I'd agree that the loop code should be reworked a bit so that
> both the filebacked and aio methods call vfs_sync() when they see
> REQ_FLUSH.

It's an easy fix. I don't anticipate that it will hurt performance too
badly.

> 
> Bleh.
> 
> - z
> (Sorry, no real time to dig into this now. Lots more time in two months!)
--
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/