2017-03-31 22:16 GMT+02:00 Thor Lancelot Simon :
> It's not obvious, but in fact ORDERED gets set for writes
> as a default, I believe -- in sd.c, I think?
>
> This confused me for some time when I last looked at it.
It confused me also, that's why I changed the code a while back to be
less confus
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:15:38 +0200
Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > given that RAIDframe (nor ccd, nor much else) has a general 'query
> > the underlying layers to ask about this capability' function.
> Is there a ``neither'' missing between ``that'' and ``RAIDframe''?
Yes, sorry.
> > (NetBSD 8 refusing
> On Mar 31, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 07:16:25PM +0200, Jarom??r Dole??ek wrote:
>>> The problem is that it does not always use SIMPLE and ORDERED tags in a
>>> way that would facilitate the use of ORDERED tags to enforce barriers.
>>
>> Our scsip
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 07:16:25PM +0200, Jarom??r Dole??ek wrote:
> > The problem is that it does not always use SIMPLE and ORDERED tags in a
> > way that would facilitate the use of ORDERED tags to enforce barriers.
>
> Our scsipi layer actually never issues ORDERED tags right now as far
> as I
Maxime Villard wrote:
> Having read several papers on the exploitation of cache latency to defeat
> aslr (kernel or not), it appears that disabling the rdtsc instruction is a
> good mitigation on x86. However, some applications can legitimately use it,
> so I would rather suggest restricting it to
> The problem is that it does not always use SIMPLE and ORDERED tags in a
> way that would facilitate the use of ORDERED tags to enforce barriers.
Our scsipi layer actually never issues ORDERED tags right now as far
as I can see, and there is currently no interface to get it set for an
I/O.
> Als
> given that RAIDframe (nor ccd, nor much else) has a general 'query the
> underlying layers to ask about this capability' function.
Is there a ``neither'' missing between ``that'' and ``RAIDframe''?
> (NetBSD 8 refusing to configure a RAID set because of this is not an
> option.)
Of course not. W
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:16:44PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
> Oh well.
>
> TLS> If the answer is that you're running with WCE on in the mode pages, then
> TLS> don't do that:
> EF> I don't get that. If you turn off the write cache, you need neither cache
> EF> flushes nor ordering, no?
> MB> You s
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:02:23 +0200
Edgar Fuß wrote:
> EF> Some comments as I probably count as one of the larger WAPBL
> EF> consumers (we have ~150 employee's Home and Mail on NFS on
> EF> FFS2+WAPBL on RAIDframe on SAS):
> JD> I've not changed the code in RF to pass the cache flags, so the
> JD
Oh well.
TLS> If the answer is that you're running with WCE on in the mode pages, then
TLS> don't do that:
EF> I don't get that. If you turn off the write cache, you need neither cache
EF> flushes nor ordering, no?
MB> You still need ordering. With tagged queuing, you have multiple commands
MB> r
> On 30. Mar 2017, at 17:20, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> In article <534552fb-af29-4219-8390-7514a2665...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de>,
> J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>> Currently vfs_busy() / vfs_unbusy() get used to
>>
>> - Enter/leave a critical section against unmounting
>>
>> - Add a reference to the mou
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:26:34AM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > If the answer is that you're running with WCE on in the mode pages, then
> > don't do that:
> I don't get that. If you turn off the write cache, you need neither cache
> flushes nor ordering, no?
You still need ordering. With tagged q
> If the answer is that you're running with WCE on in the mode pages, then
> don't do that:
I don't get that. If you turn off the write cache, you need neither cache
flushes nor ordering, no?
Maybe my SCSI understanding is off wrt. current reality.
13 matches
Mail list logo
