From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 22 16:20:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544FA1065696 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:20:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pawel@dawidek.net) Received: from mail.dawidek.net (garage.dawidek.net [91.121.88.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190088FC08 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:20:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (89-73-195-149.dynamic.chello.pl [89.73.195.149]) by mail.dawidek.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F151D94 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:19:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:20:26 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20120922162025.GE1454@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <20120919040430.GF19036@funkthat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ryJZkp9/svQ58syV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120919040430.GF19036@funkthat.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT amd64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Subject: Re: geli and BIO_FLUSH and/or BIO_ORDERED issue? X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:20:08 -0000 --ryJZkp9/svQ58syV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:04:30PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > I was looking at geli and I'm not sure if it's implementing BIO_FLUSH > and/or BIO_ORDERED properly... >=20 > >From my understanding is the BIO_ORDERED is suppose to wait for the > previous _WRITES to complete before returning so that you can ensure > that data is on disk, i.e. _ORDERED is set on a BIO_FLUSH... >=20 > BIO_ORDERED is handled by diskq_* code such that when you add an _ORDERED > command, all commands are put after it, but there doesn't appear to > be any code to ensure that an _ORDERED command waits for prevoius > pending commands to complete.. >=20 > This is extra obvious in eli in that a _FLUSH is immediately dispatched, > even when there may be _WRITEs that haven't been finished encrypting and > sent down to the disk to get _FLUSHed... >=20 > Any comments about this? Hmm, BIO_ORDERED was introduced pretty recently and GEOM classes were not updated to honour it, but it also seems to be to complex to handle in GEOM classes. I wonder if we could hold off new writes and wait for the in-progress writes in GEOM if we spot BIO_ORDERED request without the need to implement this logic in GEOM classes. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://tupytaj.pl --ryJZkp9/svQ58syV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlBd5UkACgkQForvXbEpPzS/RQCgsP3zr1ssR/+lH/TUHFeHH9di eL8AnjUWMwvqrRkou4YKDe1snt5r/cVR =rs+F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ryJZkp9/svQ58syV--