272 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
272 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
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 physcial 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
|
|
gurantee 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)(request_queue_t *q, struct request *rq);
|
|
|
|
int blk_queue_ordered(request_queue_t *q, unsigned ordered,
|
|
prepare_flush_fn *prepare_flush_fn,
|
|
unsigned gfp_mask);
|
|
|
|
int blk_queue_ordered_locked(request_queue_t *q, unsigned ordered,
|
|
prepare_flush_fn *prepare_flush_fn,
|
|
unsigned gfp_mask);
|
|
|
|
The only difference between the two functions is whether or not the
|
|
caller is holding q->queue_lock on entry. The latter expects the
|
|
caller is holding the lock.
|
|
|
|
@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
|
|
@gfp_mask : gfp_mask used when allocating data structures
|
|
for ordered processing
|
|
|
|
For example, SCSI disk driver's prepare_flush_fn looks like the
|
|
following.
|
|
|
|
static void sd_prepare_flush(request_queue_t *q, struct request *rq)
|
|
{
|
|
memset(rq->cmd, 0, sizeof(rq->cmd));
|
|
rq->flags |= REQ_BLOCK_PC;
|
|
rq->timeout = SD_TIMEOUT;
|
|
rq->cmd[0] = SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
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.
|