From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 00/13] MD: a caching layer for raid5/6 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:10:44 +1000 Message-ID: <20150710151044.396f9645@noble> References: <20150708115636.6c972269@noble> <20150708054344.GA2709238@devbig257.prn2.facebook.com> <20150710092119.297fd9e1@noble> <20150710040847.GA1408097@devbig257.prn2.facebook.com> <20150710143656.4ee7e647@noble> <20150710045225.GA1746743@devbig257.prn2.facebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150710045225.GA1746743@devbig257.prn2.facebook.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, Kernel-team@fb.com List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:52:43 -0700 Shaohua Li wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:36:56PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:08:49 -0700 Shaohua Li wrote: > > > > There is also the issue of what action commits a previous transaction. > > I'm not sure what you had. I'm suggesting that each metadata block > > commits previous transactions. Is that a close-enough match to what > > you had? > > What did you mean about a transaction? In my implementation, metadata > block and followed stripe data/parity consist of an io unit. io units can > be finished out of order. but if io unit has flush request (the data has > flush/flush bio or metadata is a flush block), the io unit can only > start after all previous io units and disk cache flush finish. Such io > unit is strictly ordered. The log patch describes this behavior. Does it > match? Yes, a "transaction" is an "io unit". The flushing is the same. I just couldn't remember how, when reading the log on restart, you determined if a given "io unit" was reliably consistent, or whether it should be ignored (having possibly only partially been written). Thanks, NeilBrown