|
@@ -1,261 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
-I/O Barriers
|
|
|
-============
|
|
|
-Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>, July 22 2005
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-I/O barrier requests are used to guarantee ordering around the barrier
|
|
|
-requests. Unless you're crazy enough to use disk drives for
|
|
|
-implementing synchronization constructs (wow, sounds interesting...),
|
|
|
-the ordering is meaningful only for write requests for things like
|
|
|
-journal checkpoints. All requests queued before a barrier request
|
|
|
-must be finished (made it to the physical medium) before the barrier
|
|
|
-request is started, and all requests queued after the barrier request
|
|
|
-must be started only after the barrier request is finished (again,
|
|
|
-made it to the physical medium).
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-In other words, I/O barrier requests have the following two properties.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-1. Request ordering
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Requests cannot pass the barrier request. Preceding requests are
|
|
|
-processed before the barrier and following requests after.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Depending on what features a drive supports, this can be done in one
|
|
|
-of the following three ways.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-i. For devices which have queue depth greater than 1 (TCQ devices) and
|
|
|
-support ordered tags, block layer can just issue the barrier as an
|
|
|
-ordered request and the lower level driver, controller and drive
|
|
|
-itself are responsible for making sure that the ordering constraint is
|
|
|
-met. Most modern SCSI controllers/drives should support this.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-NOTE: SCSI ordered tag isn't currently used due to limitation in the
|
|
|
- SCSI midlayer, see the following random notes section.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-ii. For devices which have queue depth greater than 1 but don't
|
|
|
-support ordered tags, block layer ensures that the requests preceding
|
|
|
-a barrier request finishes before issuing the barrier request. Also,
|
|
|
-it defers requests following the barrier until the barrier request is
|
|
|
-finished. Older SCSI controllers/drives and SATA drives fall in this
|
|
|
-category.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-iii. Devices which have queue depth of 1. This is a degenerate case
|
|
|
-of ii. Just keeping issue order suffices. Ancient SCSI
|
|
|
-controllers/drives and IDE drives are in this category.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-2. Forced flushing to physical medium
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Again, if you're not gonna do synchronization with disk drives (dang,
|
|
|
-it sounds even more appealing now!), the reason you use I/O barriers
|
|
|
-is mainly to protect filesystem integrity when power failure or some
|
|
|
-other events abruptly stop the drive from operating and possibly make
|
|
|
-the drive lose data in its cache. So, I/O barriers need to guarantee
|
|
|
-that requests actually get written to non-volatile medium in order.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-There are four cases,
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-i. No write-back cache. Keeping requests ordered is enough.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-ii. Write-back cache but no flush operation. There's no way to
|
|
|
-guarantee physical-medium commit order. This kind of devices can't to
|
|
|
-I/O barriers.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-iii. Write-back cache and flush operation but no FUA (forced unit
|
|
|
-access). We need two cache flushes - before and after the barrier
|
|
|
-request.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-iv. Write-back cache, flush operation and FUA. We still need one
|
|
|
-flush to make sure requests preceding a barrier are written to medium,
|
|
|
-but post-barrier flush can be avoided by using FUA write on the
|
|
|
-barrier itself.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-How to support barrier requests in drivers
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-All barrier handling is done inside block layer proper. All low level
|
|
|
-drivers have to are implementing its prepare_flush_fn and using one
|
|
|
-the following two functions to indicate what barrier type it supports
|
|
|
-and how to prepare flush requests. Note that the term 'ordered' is
|
|
|
-used to indicate the whole sequence of performing barrier requests
|
|
|
-including draining and flushing.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-typedef void (prepare_flush_fn)(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-int blk_queue_ordered(struct request_queue *q, unsigned ordered,
|
|
|
- prepare_flush_fn *prepare_flush_fn);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-@q : the queue in question
|
|
|
-@ordered : the ordered mode the driver/device supports
|
|
|
-@prepare_flush_fn : this function should prepare @rq such that it
|
|
|
- flushes cache to physical medium when executed
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-For example, SCSI disk driver's prepare_flush_fn looks like the
|
|
|
-following.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-static void sd_prepare_flush(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
|
|
|
-{
|
|
|
- memset(rq->cmd, 0, sizeof(rq->cmd));
|
|
|
- rq->cmd_type = REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC;
|
|
|
- rq->timeout = SD_TIMEOUT;
|
|
|
- rq->cmd[0] = SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE;
|
|
|
- rq->cmd_len = 10;
|
|
|
-}
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The following seven ordered modes are supported. The following table
|
|
|
-shows which mode should be used depending on what features a
|
|
|
-device/driver supports. In the leftmost column of table,
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_ prefix is omitted from the mode names to save space.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The table is followed by description of each mode. Note that in the
|
|
|
-descriptions of QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN*, '=>' is used whereas '->' is
|
|
|
-used for QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG* descriptions. '=>' indicates that the
|
|
|
-preceding step must be complete before proceeding to the next step.
|
|
|
-'->' indicates that the next step can start as soon as the previous
|
|
|
-step is issued.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- write-back cache ordered tag flush FUA
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
-NONE yes/no N/A no N/A
|
|
|
-DRAIN no no N/A N/A
|
|
|
-DRAIN_FLUSH yes no yes no
|
|
|
-DRAIN_FUA yes no yes yes
|
|
|
-TAG no yes N/A N/A
|
|
|
-TAG_FLUSH yes yes yes no
|
|
|
-TAG_FUA yes yes yes yes
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE
|
|
|
- I/O barriers are not needed and/or supported.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- Sequence: N/A
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN
|
|
|
- Requests are ordered by draining the request queue and cache
|
|
|
- flushing isn't needed.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- Sequence: drain => barrier
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN_FLUSH
|
|
|
- Requests are ordered by draining the request queue and both
|
|
|
- pre-barrier and post-barrier cache flushings are needed.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- Sequence: drain => preflush => barrier => postflush
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN_FUA
|
|
|
- Requests are ordered by draining the request queue and
|
|
|
- pre-barrier cache flushing is needed. By using FUA on barrier
|
|
|
- request, post-barrier flushing can be skipped.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- Sequence: drain => preflush => barrier
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG
|
|
|
- Requests are ordered by ordered tag and cache flushing isn't
|
|
|
- needed.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- Sequence: barrier
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG_FLUSH
|
|
|
- Requests are ordered by ordered tag and both pre-barrier and
|
|
|
- post-barrier cache flushings are needed.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- Sequence: preflush -> barrier -> postflush
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG_FUA
|
|
|
- Requests are ordered by ordered tag and pre-barrier cache
|
|
|
- flushing is needed. By using FUA on barrier request,
|
|
|
- post-barrier flushing can be skipped.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- Sequence: preflush -> barrier
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Random notes/caveats
|
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-* SCSI layer currently can't use TAG ordering even if the drive,
|
|
|
-controller and driver support it. The problem is that SCSI midlayer
|
|
|
-request dispatch function is not atomic. It releases queue lock and
|
|
|
-switch to SCSI host lock during issue and it's possible and likely to
|
|
|
-happen in time that requests change their relative positions. Once
|
|
|
-this problem is solved, TAG ordering can be enabled.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-* Currently, no matter which ordered mode is used, there can be only
|
|
|
-one barrier request in progress. All I/O barriers are held off by
|
|
|
-block layer until the previous I/O barrier is complete. This doesn't
|
|
|
-make any difference for DRAIN ordered devices, but, for TAG ordered
|
|
|
-devices with very high command latency, passing multiple I/O barriers
|
|
|
-to low level *might* be helpful if they are very frequent. Well, this
|
|
|
-certainly is a non-issue. I'm writing this just to make clear that no
|
|
|
-two I/O barrier is ever passed to low-level driver.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-* Completion order. Requests in ordered sequence are issued in order
|
|
|
-but not required to finish in order. Barrier implementation can
|
|
|
-handle out-of-order completion of ordered sequence. IOW, the requests
|
|
|
-MUST be processed in order but the hardware/software completion paths
|
|
|
-are allowed to reorder completion notifications - eg. current SCSI
|
|
|
-midlayer doesn't preserve completion order during error handling.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-* Requeueing order. Low-level drivers are free to requeue any request
|
|
|
-after they removed it from the request queue with
|
|
|
-blkdev_dequeue_request(). As barrier sequence should be kept in order
|
|
|
-when requeued, generic elevator code takes care of putting requests in
|
|
|
-order around barrier. See blk_ordered_req_seq() and
|
|
|
-ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE handling in __elv_add_request() for details.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Note that block drivers must not requeue preceding requests while
|
|
|
-completing latter requests in an ordered sequence. Currently, no
|
|
|
-error checking is done against this.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-* Error handling. Currently, block layer will report error to upper
|
|
|
-layer if any of requests in an ordered sequence fails. Unfortunately,
|
|
|
-this doesn't seem to be enough. Look at the following request flow.
|
|
|
-QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG_FLUSH is in use.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- [0] [1] [2] [3] [pre] [barrier] [post] < [4] [5] [6] ... >
|
|
|
- still in elevator
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Let's say request [2], [3] are write requests to update file system
|
|
|
-metadata (journal or whatever) and [barrier] is used to mark that
|
|
|
-those updates are valid. Consider the following sequence.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- i. Requests [0] ~ [post] leaves the request queue and enters
|
|
|
- low-level driver.
|
|
|
- ii. After a while, unfortunately, something goes wrong and the
|
|
|
- drive fails [2]. Note that any of [0], [1] and [3] could have
|
|
|
- completed by this time, but [pre] couldn't have been finished
|
|
|
- as the drive must process it in order and it failed before
|
|
|
- processing that command.
|
|
|
- iii. Error handling kicks in and determines that the error is
|
|
|
- unrecoverable and fails [2], and resumes operation.
|
|
|
- iv. [pre] [barrier] [post] gets processed.
|
|
|
- v. *BOOM* power fails
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The problem here is that the barrier request is *supposed* to indicate
|
|
|
-that filesystem update requests [2] and [3] made it safely to the
|
|
|
-physical medium and, if the machine crashes after the barrier is
|
|
|
-written, filesystem recovery code can depend on that. Sadly, that
|
|
|
-isn't true in this case anymore. IOW, the success of a I/O barrier
|
|
|
-should also be dependent on success of some of the preceding requests,
|
|
|
-where only upper layer (filesystem) knows what 'some' is.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-This can be solved by implementing a way to tell the block layer which
|
|
|
-requests affect the success of the following barrier request and
|
|
|
-making lower lever drivers to resume operation on error only after
|
|
|
-block layer tells it to do so.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-As the probability of this happening is very low and the drive should
|
|
|
-be faulty, implementing the fix is probably an overkill. But, still,
|
|
|
-it's there.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-* In previous drafts of barrier implementation, there was fallback
|
|
|
-mechanism such that, if FUA or ordered TAG fails, less fancy ordered
|
|
|
-mode can be selected and the failed barrier request is retried
|
|
|
-automatically. The rationale for this feature was that as FUA is
|
|
|
-pretty new in ATA world and ordered tag was never used widely, there
|
|
|
-could be devices which report to support those features but choke when
|
|
|
-actually given such requests.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- This was removed for two reasons 1. it's an overkill 2. it's
|
|
|
-impossible to implement properly when TAG ordering is used as low
|
|
|
-level drivers resume after an error automatically. If it's ever
|
|
|
-needed adding it back and modifying low level drivers accordingly
|
|
|
-shouldn't be difficult.
|