mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl>
To: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, axboe@suse.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: PATCH: fix the barrier IDE detection logic
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:54:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200409031554.31057.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040831165046.GA6928@devserv.devel.redhat.com>


On Tuesday 31 August 2004 18:50, Alan Cox wrote:
> This fixes the logic so we always check for the cache. It also defaults
> to safer behaviour for the non cache flush case now we have the right bits
> in the right places. I've also played a bit with timings - the worst case
> timings I can get for the flush are about 7 seconds (which I'd expect
> as the engineering worst cases will include retries)
> 
> Probably what should happen is that the barrier logic is enabled providing
> the wcache is disabled. I've not meddled with this as I don't know what
> the intended semantics and rules are for disabling barrier on a live disk
> (eg when a user uses hdparm to turn on the write cache). In the current
> code as with Jens original that cannot occur.

I think that logic is reversed here, I guess it should be: enable barrier
if user enables wcache and disable it if user disables wcache.

> I've also fixed the new printk's as per a private request from Matt Domsch.

Patch looks fine except:

> +	/* Now we have barrier awareness we can be properly conservative
> +	   by default with other drives. We turn off write caching when
> +	   barrier is not available. Users can adjust this at runtime if

This is not true because there is a check for flush cache in write_cache().

I agree that disabling write cache by default is a good thing but user
should be informed about this fact (ideally there also should be easily
available FAQ somewhere) otherwise we will get a lot of bogus bugreports
about decreased performance...

> +	   they need unsafe but fast filesystems. This will reduce the
> +	   performance of non cache flush supporting disks but it means
> +	   you get the data order guarantees the journalling fs's require */
> +	   
> +	write_cache(drive, barrier);

I'll drop this chunk and resend to Linus.

Thanks!

PS: please also cc: linux-ide on all ATA related stuff

  reply	other threads:[~2004-09-03 14:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-08-31 16:50 Alan Cox
2004-09-03 13:54 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz [this message]
2004-09-03 14:05   ` Alan Cox
2004-09-03 15:10   ` Jens Axboe
2004-09-03 15:08 ` Jens Axboe

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=200409031554.31057.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl \
    --to=bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=alan@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.dk \
    --cc=bzolnier@milosz.na.pl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®