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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).