Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | I/O Barriers |
| 2 | ============ |
| 3 | Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>, July 22 2005 |
| 4 | |
| 5 | I/O barrier requests are used to guarantee ordering around the barrier |
| 6 | requests. Unless you're crazy enough to use disk drives for |
| 7 | implementing synchronization constructs (wow, sounds interesting...), |
| 8 | the ordering is meaningful only for write requests for things like |
| 9 | journal checkpoints. All requests queued before a barrier request |
| 10 | must be finished (made it to the physical medium) before the barrier |
| 11 | request is started, and all requests queued after the barrier request |
| 12 | must be started only after the barrier request is finished (again, |
| 13 | made it to the physical medium). |
| 14 | |
| 15 | In other words, I/O barrier requests have the following two properties. |
| 16 | |
| 17 | 1. Request ordering |
| 18 | |
| 19 | Requests cannot pass the barrier request. Preceding requests are |
| 20 | processed before the barrier and following requests after. |
| 21 | |
| 22 | Depending on what features a drive supports, this can be done in one |
| 23 | of the following three ways. |
| 24 | |
| 25 | i. For devices which have queue depth greater than 1 (TCQ devices) and |
| 26 | support ordered tags, block layer can just issue the barrier as an |
| 27 | ordered request and the lower level driver, controller and drive |
Matt LaPlante | 6c28f2c | 2006-10-03 22:46:31 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 28 | itself are responsible for making sure that the ordering constraint is |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 29 | met. Most modern SCSI controllers/drives should support this. |
| 30 | |
| 31 | NOTE: SCSI ordered tag isn't currently used due to limitation in the |
| 32 | SCSI midlayer, see the following random notes section. |
| 33 | |
| 34 | ii. For devices which have queue depth greater than 1 but don't |
| 35 | support ordered tags, block layer ensures that the requests preceding |
| 36 | a barrier request finishes before issuing the barrier request. Also, |
| 37 | it defers requests following the barrier until the barrier request is |
| 38 | finished. Older SCSI controllers/drives and SATA drives fall in this |
| 39 | category. |
| 40 | |
| 41 | iii. Devices which have queue depth of 1. This is a degenerate case |
| 42 | of ii. Just keeping issue order suffices. Ancient SCSI |
| 43 | controllers/drives and IDE drives are in this category. |
| 44 | |
Matt LaPlante | 992caac | 2006-10-03 22:52:05 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 45 | 2. Forced flushing to physical medium |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 46 | |
| 47 | Again, if you're not gonna do synchronization with disk drives (dang, |
| 48 | it sounds even more appealing now!), the reason you use I/O barriers |
| 49 | is mainly to protect filesystem integrity when power failure or some |
| 50 | other events abruptly stop the drive from operating and possibly make |
| 51 | the drive lose data in its cache. So, I/O barriers need to guarantee |
| 52 | that requests actually get written to non-volatile medium in order. |
| 53 | |
| 54 | There are four cases, |
| 55 | |
| 56 | i. No write-back cache. Keeping requests ordered is enough. |
| 57 | |
| 58 | ii. Write-back cache but no flush operation. There's no way to |
Matt LaPlante | a2ffd27 | 2006-10-03 22:49:15 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 59 | guarantee physical-medium commit order. This kind of devices can't to |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 60 | I/O barriers. |
| 61 | |
| 62 | iii. Write-back cache and flush operation but no FUA (forced unit |
| 63 | access). We need two cache flushes - before and after the barrier |
| 64 | request. |
| 65 | |
| 66 | iv. Write-back cache, flush operation and FUA. We still need one |
| 67 | flush to make sure requests preceding a barrier are written to medium, |
| 68 | but post-barrier flush can be avoided by using FUA write on the |
| 69 | barrier itself. |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 72 | How to support barrier requests in drivers |
| 73 | ------------------------------------------ |
| 74 | |
| 75 | All barrier handling is done inside block layer proper. All low level |
| 76 | drivers have to are implementing its prepare_flush_fn and using one |
| 77 | the following two functions to indicate what barrier type it supports |
| 78 | and how to prepare flush requests. Note that the term 'ordered' is |
| 79 | used to indicate the whole sequence of performing barrier requests |
| 80 | including draining and flushing. |
| 81 | |
Jens Axboe | 165125e | 2007-07-24 09:28:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 82 | typedef void (prepare_flush_fn)(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq); |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 83 | |
Jens Axboe | 165125e | 2007-07-24 09:28:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 84 | int blk_queue_ordered(struct request_queue *q, unsigned ordered, |
Geert Uytterhoeven | c0613c1 | 2007-07-10 12:26:29 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 85 | prepare_flush_fn *prepare_flush_fn); |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 86 | |
| 87 | @q : the queue in question |
| 88 | @ordered : the ordered mode the driver/device supports |
| 89 | @prepare_flush_fn : this function should prepare @rq such that it |
| 90 | flushes cache to physical medium when executed |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 91 | |
| 92 | For example, SCSI disk driver's prepare_flush_fn looks like the |
| 93 | following. |
| 94 | |
Jens Axboe | 165125e | 2007-07-24 09:28:11 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 95 | static void sd_prepare_flush(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq) |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 96 | { |
| 97 | memset(rq->cmd, 0, sizeof(rq->cmd)); |
Geert Uytterhoeven | c0613c1 | 2007-07-10 12:26:29 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 98 | rq->cmd_type = REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC; |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 99 | rq->timeout = SD_TIMEOUT; |
| 100 | rq->cmd[0] = SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE; |
Geert Uytterhoeven | c0613c1 | 2007-07-10 12:26:29 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 101 | rq->cmd_len = 10; |
Tejun Heo | 5a22579 | 2006-01-16 09:45:58 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 102 | } |
| 103 | |
| 104 | The following seven ordered modes are supported. The following table |
| 105 | shows which mode should be used depending on what features a |
| 106 | device/driver supports. In the leftmost column of table, |
| 107 | QUEUE_ORDERED_ prefix is omitted from the mode names to save space. |
| 108 | |
| 109 | The table is followed by description of each mode. Note that in the |
| 110 | descriptions of QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN*, '=>' is used whereas '->' is |
| 111 | used for QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG* descriptions. '=>' indicates that the |
| 112 | preceding step must be complete before proceeding to the next step. |
| 113 | '->' indicates that the next step can start as soon as the previous |
| 114 | step is issued. |
| 115 | |
| 116 | write-back cache ordered tag flush FUA |
| 117 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 118 | NONE yes/no N/A no N/A |
| 119 | DRAIN no no N/A N/A |
| 120 | DRAIN_FLUSH yes no yes no |
| 121 | DRAIN_FUA yes no yes yes |
| 122 | TAG no yes N/A N/A |
| 123 | TAG_FLUSH yes yes yes no |
| 124 | TAG_FUA yes yes yes yes |
| 125 | |
| 126 | |
| 127 | QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE |
| 128 | I/O barriers are not needed and/or supported. |
| 129 | |
| 130 | Sequence: N/A |
| 131 | |
| 132 | QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN |
| 133 | Requests are ordered by draining the request queue and cache |
| 134 | flushing isn't needed. |
| 135 | |
| 136 | Sequence: drain => barrier |
| 137 | |
| 138 | QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN_FLUSH |
| 139 | Requests are ordered by draining the request queue and both |
| 140 | pre-barrier and post-barrier cache flushings are needed. |
| 141 | |
| 142 | Sequence: drain => preflush => barrier => postflush |
| 143 | |
| 144 | QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN_FUA |
| 145 | Requests are ordered by draining the request queue and |
| 146 | pre-barrier cache flushing is needed. By using FUA on barrier |
| 147 | request, post-barrier flushing can be skipped. |
| 148 | |
| 149 | Sequence: drain => preflush => barrier |
| 150 | |
| 151 | QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG |
| 152 | Requests are ordered by ordered tag and cache flushing isn't |
| 153 | needed. |
| 154 | |
| 155 | Sequence: barrier |
| 156 | |
| 157 | QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG_FLUSH |
| 158 | Requests are ordered by ordered tag and both pre-barrier and |
| 159 | post-barrier cache flushings are needed. |
| 160 | |
| 161 | Sequence: preflush -> barrier -> postflush |
| 162 | |
| 163 | QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG_FUA |
| 164 | Requests are ordered by ordered tag and pre-barrier cache |
| 165 | flushing is needed. By using FUA on barrier request, |
| 166 | post-barrier flushing can be skipped. |
| 167 | |
| 168 | Sequence: preflush -> barrier |
| 169 | |
| 170 | |
| 171 | Random notes/caveats |
| 172 | -------------------- |
| 173 | |
| 174 | * SCSI layer currently can't use TAG ordering even if the drive, |
| 175 | controller and driver support it. The problem is that SCSI midlayer |
| 176 | request dispatch function is not atomic. It releases queue lock and |
| 177 | switch to SCSI host lock during issue and it's possible and likely to |
| 178 | happen in time that requests change their relative positions. Once |
| 179 | this problem is solved, TAG ordering can be enabled. |
| 180 | |
| 181 | * Currently, no matter which ordered mode is used, there can be only |
| 182 | one barrier request in progress. All I/O barriers are held off by |
| 183 | block layer until the previous I/O barrier is complete. This doesn't |
| 184 | make any difference for DRAIN ordered devices, but, for TAG ordered |
| 185 | devices with very high command latency, passing multiple I/O barriers |
| 186 | to low level *might* be helpful if they are very frequent. Well, this |
| 187 | certainly is a non-issue. I'm writing this just to make clear that no |
| 188 | two I/O barrier is ever passed to low-level driver. |
| 189 | |
| 190 | * Completion order. Requests in ordered sequence are issued in order |
| 191 | but not required to finish in order. Barrier implementation can |
| 192 | handle out-of-order completion of ordered sequence. IOW, the requests |
| 193 | MUST be processed in order but the hardware/software completion paths |
| 194 | are allowed to reorder completion notifications - eg. current SCSI |
| 195 | midlayer doesn't preserve completion order during error handling. |
| 196 | |
| 197 | * Requeueing order. Low-level drivers are free to requeue any request |
| 198 | after they removed it from the request queue with |
| 199 | blkdev_dequeue_request(). As barrier sequence should be kept in order |
| 200 | when requeued, generic elevator code takes care of putting requests in |
| 201 | order around barrier. See blk_ordered_req_seq() and |
| 202 | ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE handling in __elv_add_request() for details. |
| 203 | |
| 204 | Note that block drivers must not requeue preceding requests while |
| 205 | completing latter requests in an ordered sequence. Currently, no |
| 206 | error checking is done against this. |
| 207 | |
| 208 | * Error handling. Currently, block layer will report error to upper |
| 209 | layer if any of requests in an ordered sequence fails. Unfortunately, |
| 210 | this doesn't seem to be enough. Look at the following request flow. |
| 211 | QUEUE_ORDERED_TAG_FLUSH is in use. |
| 212 | |
| 213 | [0] [1] [2] [3] [pre] [barrier] [post] < [4] [5] [6] ... > |
| 214 | still in elevator |
| 215 | |
| 216 | Let's say request [2], [3] are write requests to update file system |
| 217 | metadata (journal or whatever) and [barrier] is used to mark that |
| 218 | those updates are valid. Consider the following sequence. |
| 219 | |
| 220 | i. Requests [0] ~ [post] leaves the request queue and enters |
| 221 | low-level driver. |
| 222 | ii. After a while, unfortunately, something goes wrong and the |
| 223 | drive fails [2]. Note that any of [0], [1] and [3] could have |
| 224 | completed by this time, but [pre] couldn't have been finished |
| 225 | as the drive must process it in order and it failed before |
| 226 | processing that command. |
| 227 | iii. Error handling kicks in and determines that the error is |
| 228 | unrecoverable and fails [2], and resumes operation. |
| 229 | iv. [pre] [barrier] [post] gets processed. |
| 230 | v. *BOOM* power fails |
| 231 | |
| 232 | The problem here is that the barrier request is *supposed* to indicate |
| 233 | that filesystem update requests [2] and [3] made it safely to the |
| 234 | physical medium and, if the machine crashes after the barrier is |
| 235 | written, filesystem recovery code can depend on that. Sadly, that |
| 236 | isn't true in this case anymore. IOW, the success of a I/O barrier |
| 237 | should also be dependent on success of some of the preceding requests, |
| 238 | where only upper layer (filesystem) knows what 'some' is. |
| 239 | |
| 240 | This can be solved by implementing a way to tell the block layer which |
| 241 | requests affect the success of the following barrier request and |
| 242 | making lower lever drivers to resume operation on error only after |
| 243 | block layer tells it to do so. |
| 244 | |
| 245 | As the probability of this happening is very low and the drive should |
| 246 | be faulty, implementing the fix is probably an overkill. But, still, |
| 247 | it's there. |
| 248 | |
| 249 | * In previous drafts of barrier implementation, there was fallback |
| 250 | mechanism such that, if FUA or ordered TAG fails, less fancy ordered |
| 251 | mode can be selected and the failed barrier request is retried |
| 252 | automatically. The rationale for this feature was that as FUA is |
| 253 | pretty new in ATA world and ordered tag was never used widely, there |
| 254 | could be devices which report to support those features but choke when |
| 255 | actually given such requests. |
| 256 | |
| 257 | This was removed for two reasons 1. it's an overkill 2. it's |
| 258 | impossible to implement properly when TAG ordering is used as low |
| 259 | level drivers resume after an error automatically. If it's ever |
| 260 | needed adding it back and modifying low level drivers accordingly |
| 261 | shouldn't be difficult. |