From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea@permabit.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: XFS journal write ordering constraints?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:16:47 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170613221647.GG17542@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALoZfD4RXJUusr7-r8COsUY+8_D6z68LbCRkp+9VM1E2tUV1UA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:14:10AM -0400, Sweet Tea Dorminy wrote:
> Thank you! I'm glad that we've established it's a mismatch between our
> device's implementation and XFS expectations.
>
> >.... XFS issues log writes with REQ_PREFLUSH|REQ_FUA. This means
> >sequentially issued log writes have clearly specified ordering
> >constraints. i.e. the preflush completion order requirements means
> >that the block device must commit preflush+write+fua bios to stable
> >storage in the exact order they were issued by the filesystem....
>
> That is certainly what REQ_BARRIER did back in the day. But when
> REQ_BARRIER was replaced with separate REQ_FUA and REQ_FLUSH
> flags, and barrier.txt got replaced with writeback_cache_control.txt,
> the documentation seemed to imply the ordering requirement on *issued*
> IO had gone away (but maybe I'm missing something).
Yes, that's my understanding, too, but I also thought that multiple
outstanding flushes are ordered by the block layer. i.e. flushes can
be reordered against other operations, but not other flushes. I
could very well be wrong, but flush-to-flush ordering was what I
thought the ordered pending flush list for PREFLUSH requests in
blk_flush_complete_seq() did.
Like I said, Christoph is the expert here - he'll correct me if I'm
wrong.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-13 22:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-08 15:42 XFS journal write ordering constraints? Sweet Tea Dorminy
2017-06-09 12:38 ` Brian Foster
2017-06-09 17:30 ` Brian Foster
2017-06-09 23:44 ` Dave Chinner
2017-06-10 2:06 ` Sweet Tea Dorminy
2017-06-12 14:55 ` Brian Foster
2017-06-12 16:18 ` Brian Foster
2017-06-15 22:28 ` Sweet Tea Dorminy
2017-06-16 13:42 ` Brian Foster
2017-06-12 23:50 ` Dave Chinner
2017-06-13 14:14 ` Sweet Tea Dorminy
2017-06-13 22:16 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2017-06-14 6:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-13 16:29 ` Brian Foster
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=20170613221647.GG17542@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sweettea@permabit.com \
/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