Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH handling

Jan Kara
2015-11-18T10:41:08Z

On Mon 16-11-15 13:09:50, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:32:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ross Zwisler
> > >> <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >>> Currently the PMEM driver doesn't accept REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA bios. These
> > >>> are sent down via blkdev_issue_flush() in response to a fsync() or msync()
> > >>> and are used by filesystems to order their metadata, among other things.
> > >>>
> > >>> When we get an msync() or fsync() it is the responsibility of the DAX code
> > >>> to flush all dirty pages to media. The PMEM driver then just has issue a
> > >>> wmb_pmem() in response to the REQ_FLUSH to ensure that before we return all
> > >>> the flushed data has been durably stored on the media.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
> > >>
> > >> Hmm, I'm not seeing why we need this patch. If the actual flushing of
> > >> the cache is done by the core why does the driver need support
> > >> REQ_FLUSH? Especially since it's just a couple instructions. REQ_FUA
> > >> only makes sense if individual writes can bypass the "drive" cache,
> > >> but no I/O submitted to the driver proper is ever cached we always
> > >> flush it through to media.
> > >
> > > If the upper level filesystem gets an error when submitting a flush
> > > request, then it assumes the underlying hardware is broken and cannot
> > > be as aggressive in IO submission, but instead has to wait for in-flight
> > > IO to complete.
> >
> > Upper level filesystems won't get errors when the driver does not
> > support flush. Those requests are ended cleanly in
> > generic_make_request_checks(). Yes, the fs still needs to wait for
> > outstanding I/O to complete but in the case of pmem all I/O is
> > synchronous. There's never anything to await when flushing at the
> > pmem driver level.
> >
> > > Since FUA/FLUSH is basically a no-op for pmem devices,
> > > it doesn't make sense _not_ to support this functionality.
> >
> > Seems to be a nop either way. Given that DAX may lead to dirty data
> > pending to the device in the cpu cache that a REQ_FLUSH request will
> > not touch, its better to leave it all to the mm core to handle. I.e.
> > it doesn't make sense to call the driver just for two instructions
> > (sfence + pcommit) when the mm core is taking on the cache flushing.
> > Either handle it all in the mm or the driver, not a mixture.
>
> Does anyone know if ext4 and/or XFS alter their algorithms based on whether
> the driver supports REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA? Will the filesystem behave more
> efficiently with respect to their internal I/O ordering, etc., if PMEM
> advertises REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA support, even though we could do the same thing
> at the DAX layer?

So the information whether the driver supports FLUSH / FUA is generally
ignored by filesystems. We issue REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA requests to achieve
required ordering for fs consistency and expect that block layer does the
right thing - i.e., if the device has volatile write cache, it will be
flushed, if it doesn't have it, the request will be ignored. So the
difference between supporting and not supporting REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA is
only in how block layer handles such requests.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR