Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: reimplement FLUSH/FUA to support merge

Tejun Heo
2011-01-25T10:21:40Z

Hello, Darrick.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:31:55PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > So, I think it's better to start with something simple and improve it
> > with actual testing. If the current simple implementation can match
> > Darrick's previous numbers, let's first settle the mechanisms. We can
>
> Yep, the fsync-happy numbers more or less match... at least for 2.6.37:
> http://tinyurl.com/4q2xeao

Good to hear. Thanks for the detailed testing.

> I'll give 2.6.38-rc2 a try later, though -rc1 didn't boot for me, so these
> numbers are based on a backport to .37. :(

Well, there hasn' been any change in the area during the merge window
anyway, so I think testing on 2.6.37 should be fine.

> > I don't really think we should design the whole thing around broken
> > devices which incorrectly report writeback cache when it need not.
> > The correct place to work around that is during device identification
> > not in the flush logic.
>
> elm3a4_sas and elm3c71_extsas advertise writeback cache yet the
> flush completion times are suspiciously low. I suppose it could be
> useful to disable flushes to squeeze out that last bit of
> performance, though I don't know how one goes about querying the
> disk array to learn if there's a battery behind the cache. I guess
> the current mechanism (admin knob that picks a safe default) is good
> enough.

Yeap, that or a blacklist of devices which lie.

Jens, what do you think? If you don't object, let's put this through
linux-next.

Thank you.

--
tejun