Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Message-ID: <a2077ddf-9a8f-4101-aeb9-605d6dee3c6e@acm.org>
Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:10:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/21] block: Add fops atomic write support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc:     John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        kbusch@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me,
        jejb@linux.ibm.com, djwong@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@kernel.org, chandan.babu@oracle.com, dchinner@redhat.com,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, jbongio@google.com,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230929102726.2985188-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
 <20230929102726.2985188-11-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
 <17ee1669-5830-4ead-888d-a6a4624b638a@acm.org>
 <5d26fa3b-ec34-bc39-ecfe-4616a04977ca@oracle.com>
 <b7a6f380-c6fa-45e0-b727-ba804c6684e4@acm.org>
 <yq1lecktuoo.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
 <db6a950b-1308-4ca1-9f75-6275118bdcf5@acm.org>
 <yq1h6n7rume.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
 <34c08488-a288-45f9-a28f-a514a408541d@acm.org>
 <yq1ttr6qoqp.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <yq1ttr6qoqp.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/4/23 11:17, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Hi Bart!
> 
>> In other words, also for the above example it is guaranteed that 
>> writes of a single logical block (512 bytes) are atomic, no matter
>> what value is reported as the ATOMIC TRANSFER LENGTH GRANULARITY.
> 
> There is no formal guarantee that a disk drive sector 
> read-modify-write operation results in a readable sector after a 
> power failure. We have definitely seen blocks being mangled in the 
> field.

Aren't block devices expected to use a capacitor that provides enough
power to handle power failures cleanly?

How about blacklisting block devices that mangle blocks if a power
failure occurs? I think such block devices are not compatible with
journaling filesystems nor with log-structured filesystems.

Thanks,

Bart.