From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Kurt Miller <kurt@intricatesoftware.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Block device flush ordering
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:42:44 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190113224244.GC4205@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1547130601.20294.152.camel@intricatesoftware.com>
[ cc'd linux-block@vger.kernel.org, where questions about block
device behaviour are better directed. ]
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:30:01AM -0500, Kurt Miller wrote:
> For a well behaved block device that has a writeback cache,
> what is the proper behavior of flush when there are more
> then one outstanding flush operations? Is it;
>
> Flush all writes seen since the last flush.
> or
> Flush all writes received prior to the flush including
> those before any prior flush.
>
> For example take the following order of requests presented
> to the block device:
>
> writes 1-5
> flush 1
> write 6
> flush 2
>
> Can flush 2 finish with success as soon as write 6 is flushed
> (which may be before flush 1 success)? Or must it wait for
> all prior write operations to flush (writes 1-6)?
Don't take what I say as gospel, but according to block/blk-flush.c:
.....
* Currently, the following conditions are used to determine when to issue
* flush.
*
* C1. At any given time, only one flush shall be in progress. This makes
* double buffering sufficient.
.....
However, flushes can be deferred and re-ordered vs other non-flush
write IO dispatch. As such, the rules we work to with filesystems is
that a flush only guarantees IO that is already completed will be
written to stable storage. i.e. the filesystem has to wait for IO
completion of a write IO it needs to be stable before it can issue
(and wait for) a flush that will guarantee that it is on stable
storage.
IOWs, if your above scenario is:
submit writes 1-5
flush 1
submit write 6
writes 1,3,5 complete
flush 2
writes 2,4,6 complete
Then flush 1 does not guarantee any of the writes are on stable
storage. They *may* be on stable storage if the timing is right, but
it is not guaranteed by the OS code. Likewise, flush 2 only
guarantees writes 1, 3 and 5 are on stable storage becase they are
the only writes that have been signalled as complete when flush 2
was submitted.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-13 22:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-10 14:30 Block device flush ordering Kurt Miller
2019-01-11 9:24 ` Stefan Ring
2019-01-12 0:30 ` Kurt Miller
2019-01-13 22:42 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2019-01-14 16:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-01-15 14:35 ` Kurt Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190113224244.GC4205@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=kurt@intricatesoftware.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.