From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f173.google.com (mail-yw1-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E9564C63 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:01:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718179285; cv=none; b=Lz/D33lVPUsyXdrtUPLhm3BwzlT414r3aly6WN6xhs0gTxC5Zs6V7VeHOkidIjHzDQOE5Cf0asQMlIKwB5IiKTBs6YIos7Bc+/Wjafo3IHgWVGjtwXQTz6HVlAgTVtzJgRLQnBTOVgh4raoFWSisYnZCq23DC8sm+JIAGYMXFdM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718179285; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2cExcM3FQdKVHy7cL3IiNx2Bk/UFeUgrDgrQcqyJhl8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oHQk7bpP6ts8iPbVra6eNmsUW0pHVhPPTo9SBylAtsIqC7GZngcoEA4AcZeo7BuMKwXb6szCUZKxxTw2z2NyyieoxK2/3Ihnd4mnOsixAwPXXitOuMQtEIOy+F5FucoFtD+mtwBipyvlEwQJ9IYtQGJ5TQV3WMfKwr19u+yYKeI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=citrix.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cloud.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b=wGSiQ07I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="wGSiQ07I" Received: by mail-yw1-f173.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-62cecc3f949so23116087b3.2 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:01:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=citrix.com; s=google; t=1718179283; x=1718784083; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1PGf6HlJc1ANQenmlixWu1Sno9FA8D3ndcnX4NZVy9I=; b=wGSiQ07IIsz3I5o3sJPfsRh6+YQ4aS+dl8faDVi6tCb8oJsgDTIAJhb3nIcw252bU0 nDpxqZOv3GJrkXMrxGioYAsvh4Pq/cnolHHO/TtN2xI0rAGtwEWsQRY4QkfU7k3Bm65M hGrDJE6dultwgkDJcvbr8RkJ/+8f2Omv1w+bg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718179283; x=1718784083; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=1PGf6HlJc1ANQenmlixWu1Sno9FA8D3ndcnX4NZVy9I=; b=iqjiNajaUEE6tAJnQjtE29m6PPrhjBNSo/8GC4xUWuBDCwIvWIT54ACn9JaEvn5XAe g+8vJnCFHh35VsYGC90SR4pIQkF+4OsT4t3pYMRv4feqH8SzL4PejQsqtYceuTzte0IR sCwXLU4Vdc41DzymvXJW55Ikuj+y6uQCdlqakp5GIACA1dP4SneXQIZMP8g2IoITEwnN xwNWNcR4PvlCv53KqFlY8IHDV2lXDO8Vz1ekKdhqSam0YSCMfy6HMKLgklPG4s2n69Qb Q2gbLGL+TDe5IVmsbz6XHLi3QVOQbi9QnbhwRuNRgaJnb/faYZ+YE5DNR/L/R7HrXopy moEA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWNoeWmrgzRldNUq/hFhsw/0CxItbOYFhXpIqr7ewe8B4HQebIC/EPLhpVsE2Onci5w4N7EUTg8jMbRic8Wlq4kPL62vOAYazhC1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywzj88Y96CyTrasnUoGactLg1sgzxTSPch7qofu4/F0hlmFoRMO mEhdMFTbbJNbHemEqNXrSXIcmUqG8aQW4JiW3BzqOL0NoLdWrQidswNg/6Ot9W8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEk5bObzz8qCZsqdRqFNOU7a/dh67daOPgnEKJGJzh0sP06pKqPApTvT03CHGJxr8rf1zPYww== X-Received: by 2002:a81:b647:0:b0:61b:e62e:73f1 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-62fb8a58273mr12605907b3.3.1718179282688; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([46.222.2.38]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6b093aff889sm6894416d6.101.2024.06.12.01.01.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:01:18 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Geert Uytterhoeven , Richard Weinberger , Philipp Reisner , Lars Ellenberg , Christoph =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6hmwalder?= , Josef Bacik , Ming Lei , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Alasdair Kergon , Mike Snitzer , Mikulas Patocka , Song Liu , Yu Kuai , Vineeth Vijayan , "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, nbd@other.debian.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/26] xen-blkfront: don't disable cache flushes when they fail Message-ID: References: <20240611051929.513387-1-hch@lst.de> <20240611051929.513387-11-hch@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240611051929.513387-11-hch@lst.de> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 07:19:10AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > blkfront always had a robust negotiation protocol for detecting a write > cache. Stop simply disabling cache flushes when they fail as that is > a grave error. It's my understanding the current code attempts to cover up for the lack of guarantees the feature itself provides: * feature-barrier * Values: 0/1 (boolean) * Default Value: 0 * * A value of "1" indicates that the backend can process requests * containing the BLKIF_OP_WRITE_BARRIER request opcode. Requests * of this type may still be returned at any time with the * BLKIF_RSP_EOPNOTSUPP result code. * * feature-flush-cache * Values: 0/1 (boolean) * Default Value: 0 * * A value of "1" indicates that the backend can process requests * containing the BLKIF_OP_FLUSH_DISKCACHE request opcode. Requests * of this type may still be returned at any time with the * BLKIF_RSP_EOPNOTSUPP result code. So even when the feature is exposed, the backend might return EOPNOTSUPP for the flush/barrier operations. Such failure is tied on whether the underlying blkback storage supports REQ_OP_WRITE with REQ_PREFLUSH operation. blkback will expose "feature-barrier" and/or "feature-flush-cache" without knowing whether the underlying backend supports those operations, hence the weird fallback in blkfront. I'm unsure whether lack of REQ_PREFLUSH support is not something that we should worry about, it seems like it was when the code was introduced, but that's > 10y ago. Overall blkback should ensure that REQ_PREFLUSH is supported before exposing "feature-barrier" or "feature-flush-cache", as then the exposed features would really match what the underlying backend supports (rather than the commands blkback knows about). Thanks, Roger.