Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:26:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:26:44 -0500 Received: from paloma15.e0k.nbg-hannover.de ([62.181.130.15]:21648 "HELO paloma15.e0k.nbg-hannover.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:26:31 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Dieter =?iso-8859-15?q?N=FCtzel?= Organization: DN To: James Bottomley , Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.x write barriers (updated for ext3) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:26:27 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.9] Cc: Linux Kernel List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200203011626.27719.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > mason@suse.com said: > > So, a little testing with scsi_info shows my scsi drives do have > > writeback cache on. great. What's interesting is they must be doing > > additional work for ordered tags. If they were treating the block as > > written once in cache, using the tags should not change performance > > at all. But, I can clearly show the tags changing performance, and > > hear the drive write pattern change when tags are on. > I checked all mine and they're write through. However, I inherited all my > drives from an enterprise vendor so this might not be that surprising. How do you checked it? Which scsi_info version? Mine gave only the below info: SunWave1 /home/nuetzel# scsi_info /dev/sda SCSI_ID="0,0,0" MODEL="IBM DDYS-T18350N" FW_REV="S96H" SunWave1 /home/nuetzel# scsi_info /dev/sdb SCSI_ID="0,1,0" MODEL="IBM DDRS-34560D" FW_REV="DC1B" SunWave1 /home/nuetzel# scsi_info /dev/sdc SCSI_ID="0,2,0" MODEL="IBM DDRS-34560W" FW_REV="S71D" But when I use "scsi-config" I get under "Cache Control Page": Read cache enabled: Yes Write cache enabled: No I've tested it with setting this by hand some months ago, but the speed doesn't change in anyway (ReiserFS). > I can surmise why ordered tags kill performance on your drive, since an > ordered tag is required to affect the ordering of the write to the medium, > not the cache, it is probably implemented with an implicit cache flush. > > Anyway, the attached patch against 2.4.18 (and I know it's rather gross > code) will probe the cache type and try to set it to write through on boot. > See what this does to your performance ordinarily, and also to your > tagged write barrier performance. Will test it over the weekend on 2.4.19-pre1aa1 with all Reiserfs 2.4.18.pending patches applied. Regards, Dieter - 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/