Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

["Stefan Bader" <sbader3@googlemail.com>]

2007/5/28, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:30:32AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > 1/ A BIO_RW_BARRIER request should never fail with -EOPNOTSUP.
>
> The device-mapper position has always been that we require
>
> >  a zero-length BIO_RW_BARRIER
>
> (i.e. containing no data to read or write - or emulated, possibly
> device-specific)
>
> before we can provide full barrier support.
>   (Consider multiple active paths - each must see barrier.)
>

Couldn't the same be ac hived by doing a sort of suspend, issuing the
barrier request, calling flush to all mapped devices and then wait for
in-flight I/O to go to zero? This certainly has the aspect of
performance degradation (but that seem to be a generic problem with
barriers not being specific enough).

> Until every device supports barriers -EOPNOTSUP support is required.
>   (Consider reconfiguration of stacks of devices - barrier support is a
>    dynamic block device property that can switch between available and
>    unavailable at any time.)
>
Is only an issue if not doing barrier handling in dm. In that case the
support in the devices is helpful but not required.

For something else: Alasdair, I am not a hundred percent sure about
that but I think that just passing the barrier flag on to mapped
devices might in some (maybe they are rare) cases cause a layer above
to think all data is on-disk while this isn't necessarily true (see my
previous post). What do you think?

Stefan