Re: [PATCH 01/21] block: Add atomic write operations to request_queue limits

[Bart Van Assche]

On 10/3/23 20:00, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Bart,
>
> > also that there are no guarantees that the data written by an 
> > atomic write will survive a power failure. See also the difference 
> > between the NVMe parameters AWUN and AWUPF.
>
> We only care about *PF. The *N variants were cut from the same cloth 
> as TRIM and UNMAP.

In my opinion there is a contradiction between the above reply and patch
19/21 of this series. Data written with the SCSI WRITE ATOMIC command is
not guaranteed to survive a power failure. The following quote from
SBC-5 makes this clear:

"4.29.2 Atomic write operations that do not complete

If the device server is not able to successfully complete an atomic
write operation (e.g., the command is terminated or aborted), then the
device server shall ensure that none of the LBAs specified by the atomic
write operation have been altered by any logical block data from the
atomic write operation (i.e., the specified LBAs return logical block
data as if the atomic write operation had not occurred).

If a power loss causes loss of logical block data from an atomic write
operation in a volatile write cache that has not yet been stored on the
medium, then the device server shall ensure that none of the LBAs
specified by the atomic write operation have been altered by any logical
block data from the atomic write operation (i.e., the specified LBAs
return logical block data as if the atomic write operation had not
occurred and writes from the cache to the medium preserve the specified
atomicity)."

In other words, if a power failure occurs, SCSI devices are allowed to
discard the data written with a WRITE ATOMIC command if no SYNCHRONIZE
CACHE command has been submitted after that WRITE ATOMIC command or if
the SYNCHRONIZE CACHE command did not complete before the power failure.

Thanks,

Bart.