Re: [PATCH 2/5] virtio_blk: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 08/17/2010 03:23 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Hmmm... the underlying storage could be md/dm RAIDs in which case FUA
>> should be cheaper than FLUSH.
> 
> If someone ever wrote a virtio-blk backend that sits directly ontop
> of the Linux block layer that would be true.  Of the five known
> virtio-blk backends all operate on normal files using the Posix I/O
> APIs, or the Linux aio API (optionally in qemu) or in-kernel
> vfs_read/vfs_write (vhost-blk).

Right.

> Given how little testing lguest gets compared to qemu I really don't
> want a protocol addition for it unless it really buys us something.
> Once we're done with this barrier conversion I plan into benchmarking
> FUA and a pre-flush tag on the command for virtio in real life setups,
> and see if it actually buys us anything.

Hmmm... yeah, we can drop it.  Michael, what do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/