Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> > > We (as in Linux) should make sure that we explicitly tell the disk when
> > > we need it to flush its disk buffers. We don't do that right, and
> > > because of _our_ problems some people claim that writeback caching is
> > > evil and bad.
> >
> > Does this even work right for IDE ?
>
> Current IDE drives it may be a NOP. Worse than that it would totally ruin
> high end raid performance. We need to pass write barriers. A good i2o card
> might have 256Mb of writeback cache that we want to avoid flushing - because
> it is battery backed and can be ordered.
If the cache is small and is primarily a track cache (IDE) one trick that
we can do is to flood the cache with data so everything is forced out.
We can do this at mkfs time, (so even destructive tests are allowed)
and we can probe how to make this work for a particular drive. And
then the kernel can just use the results of that probe.
> By all means have drivers fall back to cache writeback, but don't assume
> that is the basic operation.
Definentily. We want a write-barrier however we can get it.
> Indeed a smarter raid card can generally do
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:37 EST