Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier withsequenced flush

[Hannes Reinecke]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> The problem purely exists on arrays that report write back cache enabled
>> AND don't implement SYNC_CACHE as a noop. Do any of them exist, or are
>> they purely urban legend?
> 
> I haven't seen it.  I don't care particularly about this case, but once
> it a while people want to disable flushing for testing or because they
> really don't care.
> 
aacraid for one falls into this category.
SYNC_CACHE is no-oped in the driver. Otherwise you get a _HUGE_
performance loss.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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/