[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch] xen-blkback: sync I/O after backend disconnected
- To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:15:08 +0100
- Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marsden <greg.marsden@xxxxxxxxxx>, Joe Jin <joe.jin@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg, Kurt C Hackel <KURT.HACKEL@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:03:24 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch] xen-blkback: sync
I/O after backend disconnected"):
> And the guest would normally issues a FLUSH when unmounting the
> disk. Hm, I wonder what the conditions are when we forcibly kill the
> guest - there might be outstanding I/Os in the disk's cache -
> at which point we should probably sync the write cache, no?
If we forcibly kill the guest we don't care about its IO in flight.
After all we are throwing away everything that the guest has in its
Bear in mind that the reason for forcibly killing (or perhaps forcibly
detaching) might be that the underlying device has wedged somehow. It
would be annoying if that prevented even a force detach.
Or to put it in other words: force detach and force kill should be
lossy. Their whole point is to be the lossy version.
Xen-devel mailing list