Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759202AbXE1EaU (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 00:30:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753605AbXE1EaF (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 00:30:05 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:50429 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753189AbXE1EaB (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2007 00:30:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:29:26 +1000 From: David Chinner To: Neil Brown Cc: David Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Phillip Susi , Stefan Bader , Andreas Dilger , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md. Message-ID: <20070528042926.GC85884050@sgi.com> References: <18006.38689.818186.221707@notabene.brown> <18010.12472.209452.148229@notabene.brown> <20070528024559.GA85884050@sgi.com> <18010.17713.76863.245176@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18010.17713.76863.245176@notabene.brown> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1732 Lines: 45 On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 12:57:53PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Monday May 28, dgc@sgi.com wrote: > > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:30:32AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > > Thanks everyone for your input. There was some very valuable > > > observations in the various emails. > > > I will try to pull most of it together and bring out what seem to be > > > the important points. > > > > > > 1/ A BIO_RW_BARRIER request should never fail with -EOPNOTSUP. > > > > Sounds good to me, but how do we test to see if the underlying > > device supports barriers? Do we just assume that they do and > > only change behaviour if -o nobarrier is specified in the mount > > options? > > What exactly do you want to know, and why do you care? If someone explicitly mounts "-o barrier" and the underlying device cannot do it, then we want to issue a warning or reject the mount. > The idea is that every "struct block_device" supports barriers. If the > underlying hardware doesn't support them directly, then they get > simulated by draining the queue and issuing a flush. Ok. But you also seem to be implying that there will be devices that cannot support barriers. Even if all devices do eventually support barriers, it may take some time before we reach that goal. Why not start by making it easy to determine what the capabilities of each device are. This can then be removed once we reach the holy grail.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - 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/