On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 18:03 +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 06:22:57PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote: > > We only intent to fua the first superblock in every device from > > comments, fix it. > > Good catch, this could gain some speedup when there are up to 2 less > flushes. > > There's one thing that's a different from currnet behaviour: > Without this patch, all the superblocks are written with FUA, now only > the first one, so my question is what if the first fails and the others > succeed but do not get flushed immediatelly? > > This is more of a theoretical scenario, and if the 1st superblock write > fails more serious problems can be expected. But let's say the write > error of 1st is transient, do you or others think that it's reasonable > to try to write all the remainig sb's with FUA?
Not a bad idea, if we get a failure on the first SB, fua the others? I think it does make sense to do the others non-fua, just because they only get used in emergencies anyway. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
