On 04/24/2013 01:17 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 23/04/2013 22:07, James Bottomley ha scritto: >> On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 15:41 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>> For many years, we have used WCE as an indication that a device has a >>> volatile >>> write cache (not just a write cache) and used this as a trigger to send >>> down >>> SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE commands as needed. >>> >>> Some arrays with non-volatile cache seem to have WCE set and simply ignore >>> the >>> command. >> >> I bet they don't; they probably obey the spec. There's a SYNC_NV bit >> which if unset (which it is in our implementation) means only sync your >> non-NV cache. For a device with all NV, that equates to nop. > > Isn't it the other way round? > > SYNC_NV = 0 means "sync all your caches to the medium", and it's what we do. > > SYNC_NV = 1 means "sync volatile to non-volatile", and it's what Ric wants. > > So we should set SYNC_NV=1 if NV_SUP is set, perhaps only if the medium > is non-removable just to err on the safe side. >
Or use 'WRITE_AND_VERIFY' here; that's guaranteed to hit the disk. Plus it even has a guarantee about data consistency on the disk, which the normal WRITE command has not. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage h...@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
