Hello, Christoph.

On 08/13/2010 01:48 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

The patchset looks functionally correct to me, and with a small patch
to make use of WRITE_FUA_FLUSH survives xfstests, and instrumenting the
underlying qemu shows that we actually get the flush requests where we should.

Great.

No performance or power fail testing done yet.

But I do not like the transition very much.  The new WRITE_FUA_FLUSH
request is exactly what filesystems expect from a current barrier
request, so I'd rather move to that functionality without breaking stuff
inbetween.

So if it was to me I'd keep patches 1, 2, 4 and 5 from your series, than
a main one to relax barrier semantics, then have the renaming patches 7
and 8, and possible keep patch 11 separate from the main implementation
change, and if absolutely also a separate one to introduce REQ_FUA and
REQ_FLUSH in the bio interface, but keep things working while doing
this.

There are two reason to avoid changing the meaning of REQ_HARDBARRIER
and just deprecate it.  One is to avoid breaking filesystems'
expectations underneath it.  Please note that there are out-of-tree
filesystems too.  I think it would be too dangerous to relax
REQ_HARDBARRIER.

Another is that pseudo block layer drivers (loop, virtio_blk,
md/dm...) have assumptions about REQ_HARDBARRIER behavior and things
would be broken in obscure ways between REQ_HARDBARRIER semantics
change and updates to each of those drivers, so I don't really think
changing the semantics while the mechanism is online is a good idea.

Then we can patches do disable the reiserfs barrier "optimization" as
the very first one, and DM/MD support which I'm currently working on
as the last one and we can start doing the heavy testing.

Oops, I've already converted loop, virtio_blk/lguest and am working on
md/dm right now too.  I'm almost done with md and now doing dm. :-)
Maybe we should post them right now so that we don't waste too much
time trying to solve the same problems?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun