[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] xen_disk: support "direct-io-safe" backend o
From: |
Stefano Stabellini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] xen_disk: support "direct-io-safe" backend option |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:57:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) |
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 27/06/2013 20:16, Stefano Stabellini ha scritto:
> > Support backend option "direct-io-safe". This is documented as
> > follows in the Xen backend specification:
> >
> > * direct-io-safe
> > * Values: 0/1 (boolean)
> > * Default Value: 0
> > *
> > * The underlying storage is not affected by the direct IO memory
> > * lifetime bug. See:
> > * http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-12/msg01154.html
> > *
> > * Therefore this option gives the backend permission to use
> > * O_DIRECT, notwithstanding that bug.
> > *
> > * That is, if this option is enabled, use of O_DIRECT is safe,
> > * in circumstances where we would normally have avoided it as a
> > * workaround for that bug. This option is not relevant for all
> > * backends, and even not necessarily supported for those for
> > * which it is relevant. A backend which knows that it is not
> > * affected by the bug can ignore this option.
> > *
> > * This option doesn't require a backend to use O_DIRECT, so it
> > * should not be used to try to control the caching behaviour.
> >
> > Also, BDRV_O_NATIVE_AIO is ignored if BDRV_O_NOCACHE, so clarify the
> > default flags passed to the qemu block layer.
> >
> > The original proposal for a "cache" backend option has been dropped
> > because it was believed too wide, especially considering that at the
> > moment the backend doesn't have a way to tell the toolstack that it is
> > capable of supporting it.
>
> Given how rusty my xenstore-fu is, I'll ask the obvious: the frontend
> cannot write to it, can it?
Nope, this option lives under the backend path, that is read-only for
the frontend