From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 25 11:38:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BE7106566B; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:38:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from mail.zoral.com.ua (mx0.zoral.com.ua [91.193.166.200]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC418FC20; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alf.home (alf.kiev.zoral.com.ua [10.1.1.177]) by mail.zoral.com.ua (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id pAPBbx6M002233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:37:59 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from alf.home (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alf.home (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pAPBbxVl053331; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:37:59 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: (from kostik@localhost) by alf.home (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pAPBbu7S053330; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:37:56 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: alf.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:37:56 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Message-ID: <20111125113756.GZ50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <1957615267.20111123230026@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20111123194444.GE50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20111125110235.GB1642@garage.freebsd.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ueB5pLXoW+W2Rkrh" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111125110235.GB1642@garage.freebsd.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.2 at skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does UFS2 send BIO_FLUSH to GEOM when update metadata (with softupdates)? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:38:03 -0000 --ueB5pLXoW+W2Rkrh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:02:35PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:44:44PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:00:26PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > > Hello, Freebsd-fs. > > >=20 > > > Does UFS2 with softupdates (without journal) issues BIO_FLUSH to > > > GEOM layer when it need to ensure consistency on on-disk metadata? > > No. Softupdates do not need flushes. >=20 > Well, they do for two reasons: > 1. To properly handle sync operations (fsync(2), O_SYNC). > 2. To maintain consistent on-disk structures. >=20 > The second point is there, because BIO_FLUSH is the only way to avoid > reordering (apart from turning off disk write cache). >=20 > SU assumes no I/O reordering will happen, which is very weak assumption. You are not saying the whole truth there. SU only depends on the device reporting the finished write to not lie. The disk layer performing reordering of the writes, or device itself reordering (but properly reported with some tagging, e.g. NCQ) are very much fine with SU. Harware that reports finished write and not making the data to stable storage, or software driver that does such thing itself are just utterly broken. --ueB5pLXoW+W2Rkrh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk7PfhQACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4ioRQCg6I8GeoOVbhpOS3V6IcusyQJE 9qAAni+RRHbWm3KFCec7lzaCIswO42oK =G4IE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ueB5pLXoW+W2Rkrh--