Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:42:39 +0300
From:      Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r212160 - in head/sys: cam/ata cam/scsi cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs geom geom/sched kern sys
Message-ID:  <4C8098DF.4090606@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100903062355.GB1780@garage.freebsd.pl>
References:  <201009021940.o82JeS8M017537@svn.freebsd.org> <20100902213926.GA2542@garage.freebsd.pl> <4C802028.4040400@FreeBSD.org> <20100903062355.GB1780@garage.freebsd.pl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 04:07:36PM -0600, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
>>  On 9/2/2010 3:39 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>>> Don't you think it would be better to set the flag from within
>>> g_io_request()? This way every BIO_FLUSH consumer doesn't have to
>>> remember to set it. Or am I missing something?
>> I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I thought that
>> g_io_request()'s job was to execute the request and to test invariants,
>> not to set policy.  Perhaps I misinterpreted it's role.
> 
> Does BIO_FLUSH make sense without BIO_ORDERED? My understanding is that
> it doesn't. 

IMHO it does. If caller manages ordering by waiting for all required
writes to complete before submitting BIO_FLUSH. Such technics probably
can be more difficult, but IMHO should give more flexibility to disk
schedulers under parallel load.

> But we still want BIO_ORDERED for use with BIO_WRITE for
> write barriers without cache flushing.

Sure.

-- 
Alexander Motin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C8098DF.4090606>