WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] blkfront problem in pvops kernel when barriers enabled

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] blkfront problem in pvops kernel when barriers enabled
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:43:14 -0400
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marek Marczykowski <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:45:40 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4E67AB39.70801@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4E6357C6.6050101@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110906163213.GC5264@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4E665572.7080009@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110907014741.GD30639@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4E67AB39.70801@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:34:49AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 09/06/2011 06:47 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > (on 3.1rc2) Looking to xenstore now there is 'feature-flush-cache=1' and
> > no 'feature-barrier'. So it is ok.
> > <scratches head>
> >
> > I can only think of 2.6.38-3 XenOLinux doing it - and it is a bug
> > to do it. It really ought to _not_ advertise 'feature-barrier' and
> > instead advertise 'feature-flush-cache'.
> 
> Does that mean that older guests which don't understand flush-cache will
> be left with no way to force writes to stable storage?  Seems to me that

Correct.
> even if the backend would prefer flush-cache, it should also advertise
> barriers.

But doing it incorrectly is bad - really bad.

> 
> However, that raises the question of how to express the preferred
> mechanism if multiple are available.  You could assume that flush-cache
> is always preferred if available, but that's pretty clunky.

That is how I did it in the frontend.
> 
>     J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel