From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: T10 WCE interpretation in Linux & device level access Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:08:03 +0200 Message-ID: <5177CB23.5090802@redhat.com> References: <5176E3E8.3000809@redhat.com> <1366747622.1939.6.camel@dabdike> <5177BF53.3040305@redhat.com> <5177CAF5.6060506@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57850 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932534Ab3DXMIm (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:08:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5177CAF5.6060506@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: James Bottomley , Ric Wheeler , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Jeff Moyer , Tejun Heo , Mike Snitzer Il 24/04/2013 14:07, Hannes Reinecke ha scritto: > On 04/24/2013 01:17 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 23/04/2013 22:07, James Bottomley ha scritto: >>> On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 15:41 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>>> For many years, we have used WCE as an indication that a device has a volatile >>>> write cache (not just a write cache) and used this as a trigger to send down >>>> SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE commands as needed. >>>> >>>> Some arrays with non-volatile cache seem to have WCE set and simply ignore the >>>> command. >>> >>> I bet they don't; they probably obey the spec. There's a SYNC_NV bit >>> which if unset (which it is in our implementation) means only sync your >>> non-NV cache. For a device with all NV, that equates to nop. >> >> Isn't it the other way round? >> >> SYNC_NV = 0 means "sync all your caches to the medium", and it's what we do. >> >> SYNC_NV = 1 means "sync volatile to non-volatile", and it's what Ric wants. >> >> So we should set SYNC_NV=1 if NV_SUP is set, perhaps only if the medium >> is non-removable just to err on the safe side. > > Or use 'WRITE_AND_VERIFY' here; that's guaranteed to hit the disk. > Plus it even has a guarantee about data consistency on the disk, > which the normal WRITE command has not. The point is to _avoid_ hitting the disk. :) Paolo