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

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1542 bytes --]

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.  Since FUA/FLUSH is basically a no-op for pmem devices,
it doesn't make sense _not_ to support this functionality.

Cheers, Andreas






[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]