Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:46:56 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>, jgarzik@pobox.com,
       James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-2.6-block:post-2.6.15 08/10] blk: update IDE to use new blk_ordered
Message-ID: <20051123084655.GV15804@suse.de>
References: <20051117153509.B89B4777@htj.dyndns.org> <20051117153509.061D8991@htj.dyndns.org> <58cb370e0511171211p60e7c248mda477015cf1bd7c5@mail.gmail.com> <437DEE35.9060901@gmail.com> <58cb370e0511180759u4cb50535gfd7b96100a0bd70f@mail.gmail.com> <20051122024401.GB10213@htj.dyndns.org> <58cb370e0511220036r6e61b509i3bc1f7ce90178b1d@mail.gmail.com> <20051123072332.GA6653@htj.dyndns.org> <58cb370e0511230040k6bc53862xac35979eaf1f0634@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <58cb370e0511230040k6bc53862xac35979eaf1f0634@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3500
Lines: 80

On Wed, Nov 23 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On 11/23/05, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:36:09AM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > [--snip--]
> > > >
> > > > Ordered requests are processed in the following order.
> > > >
> > > > 1. barrier bio reaches blk queue
> > > >
> > > > 2. barrier req queued in order
> > > >
> > > > 3. when barrier req reaches the head of the request queue, it gets
> > > >    interpreted into preflush-barrier-postflush requests sequence
> > > >    and queued.  ->prepare_flush_fn is called in this step.
> > > >
> > > > 4. When all three requests complete, the ordered sequence ends.
> > > >
> > > > Adding !drive->wcache test to idedisk_prepare_flush, which in turn
> > > > requires adding ->prepare_flush_fn error handling to blk ordered
> > > > handling, prevents flushes for barrier requests between step#1 and
> > >
> > > Why for !drive->wcache flush can't be consider as successful
> > > like it was before these changes...
> > >
> > > > step#3.  We can still have flush reqeuests between #3 and #4 after
> > > > wcache is turned off.
> > >
> > > ditto
> > >
> >
> > I think we have two alternatives here - both have some problems.
> >
> > 1. make ->prepare_flush_fn return some code to tell blk layer skip
> >    the flush as the original code did.
> >
> > This is what you're proposing, I guess.  The reason why I'm reluctant
> > to take this approach is that there still remains window of error
> > between #3 and #4.  The flush requests could already be prepared and
> > in the queue when ->wcache is turned off.  AFAICS, the original code
> > had the same problem, although the window was narrower.
> >
> > 2. complete flush commands successfully in execute_drive_cmd() if wcache
> >    is not enabled.
> >
> > This approach fixes all cases but the implementation would be a bit
> > hackish.  execute_drive_cmd() will have to look at the command and
> > ide_disk->wcache to determine if a special command should be completed
> > successfully without actually executing it.  Maybe we can add a
> > per-HL-driver callback for that.
> >
> > Bartlomiej, I'm not really sure about both of above approaches.  My
> > humble opinion is that benefits brought by both of above aren't worth
> > the added complexity.  The worst can happen is a few IDE command
> > failures caused by executing flush command on a wcache disabled drive.
> > And that would happen only when the user turns off wcache while
> > barrier sequence is *in progress*.
> >
> > Hmmm... What do you think?  It's your call.  I'll do what you choose.
> 
> Hmm... both solutions sucks.  After second thought I agree with you
> w.r.t to original changes (just remember to document them in the patch
> description).

Me too. Plus on most drives a flush cache command on a drive with write
back caching disabled will succeed, not fail. t13 is about to mandate
that behaviour as well, and honestly I think this is the logical way to
implement it in a drive (the flush just becomes a noop).

So Tejun, where do we stand with this patch series? Any changes over
what you posted last week? I'd like to get this merged in the block
tree, get it in -mm and merged for 2.6.16 if things work out.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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