Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760569AbXE1Bhq (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2007 21:37:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753718AbXE1Bhf (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2007 21:37:35 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46044 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753087AbXE1Bhe (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2007 21:37:34 -0400 From: Neil Brown To: "Stefan Bader" Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:37:20 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18010.12880.258773.95448@notabene.brown> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, "Jens Axboe" , "David Chinner" Subject: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md. In-Reply-To: message from Stefan Bader on Friday May 25 References: <18006.38689.818186.221707@notabene.brown> <5201e28f0705250652mff2735dwd2c14f5ad130ae97@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 X-face: [Gw_3E*Gng}4rRrKRYotwlE?.2|**#s9D 2007/5/25, Neil Brown : > > - Are there other bit that we could handle better? > > BIO_RW_FAILFAST? BIO_RW_SYNC? What exactly do they mean? > > > BIO_RW_FAILFAST: means low-level driver shouldn't do much (or no) > error recovery. Mainly used by mutlipath targets to avoid long SCSI > recovery. This should just be propagated when passing requests on. Is it "much" or "no"? Would it be reasonable to use this for reads from a non-degraded raid1? What about writes? What I would really like is some clarification on what sort of errors get retried, how often, and how much timeout there is.. And does the 'error' code returned in ->bi_end_io allow us to differentiate media errors from other errors yet? > > BIO_RW_SYNC: means this is a bio of a synchronous request. I don't > know whether there are more uses to it but this at least causes queues > to be flushed immediately instead of waiting for more requests for a > short time. Should also just be passed on. Otherwise performance gets > poor since something above will rather wait for the current > request/bio to complete instead of sending more. Yes, this one is pretty straight forward.. I mentioned it more as a reminder to my self that I really should support it in raid5 :-( NeilBrown - 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/