Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755396AbXE3QpV (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 12:45:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752011AbXE3QpH (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 12:45:07 -0400 Received: from iriserv.iradimed.com ([72.242.190.170]:17592 "EHLO iradimed.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750890AbXE3QpF (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 12:45:05 -0400 Message-ID: <465DAA15.3070703@cfl.rr.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:45:09 -0400 From: Phillip Susi User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Chinner CC: Neil Brown , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Stefan Bader , Andreas Dilger , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md. References: <18006.38689.818186.221707@notabene.brown> <18010.12472.209452.148229@notabene.brown> <20070528024559.GA85884050@sgi.com> <465C871F.708@cfl.rr.com> <20070529234832.GT85884050@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070529234832.GT85884050@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2007 16:45:14.0680 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5968B80:01C7A2D9] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.2.0.1122-3.6.1039-15208.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.875600-5.000000-31 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1354 Lines: 31 David Chinner wrote: >> Barrier != synchronous write, > > Of course. FYI, XFS only issues barriers on *async* writes. > > But barrier semantics - as far as they've been described by everyone > but you indicate that the barrier write is guaranteed to be on stable > storage when it returns. Hrm... I may have misunderstood the perspective you were talking from. Yes, when the bio is completed it must be on the media, but the filesystem should issue both requests, and then really not care when they complete. That is to say, the filesystem should not wait for block A to finish before issuing block B; it should issue both, and use barriers to make sure they hit the disk in the correct order. > XFS relies on the block being stable before any other write > goes to disk. That is the semantic that the barrier I/Os currently > have. How that is implemented in the device is irrelevant to me, > but if I issue a barrier I/O, I do not expect *any* I/O to be > reordered around it. Right... it just needs to control the order of the requests, just not wait on one to finish before issuing the next. - 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/