| 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. |