On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:50:27AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:27:48AM +0200, Jarom??r Dole??ek wrote:
> > 
> > 3.2 use FUA (Force Unit Access) for commit record write
> > This avoids need to issue even the second DIOCCACHESYNC, as flushing
> > the disk cache is not really all that useful, I like the thread over
> > at:
> > http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/drive_caches.html
> > Slightly less controversially, this would allow the rest of the
> > journal records to be written asynchronously, leaving them to execute
> > even after commit if so desired. It may be useful to have this
> > behaviour optional. I lean towards skipping the disk cache flush as
> > default behaviour however, if we implement write barrier for the
> > commit record (see below).
> > WAPBL would need to deal with drives without FUA, i.e fall back to cache 
> > flush.
> 
> I have never understood this business about needing FUA to implement
> barriers.  AFAICT, for any SCSI or SCSI-like disk device, all that is
> actually needed is to do standard writes with simple tags, and barrier
> writes with ordered tags.  What am I missing?

AFAIK ordered tags only guarantees that the write will happen in order,
but not that the writes are actually done to stable storage.
If you get a fsync() from userland, you have to do a cache flush (or FUA).

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--

Reply via email to