A bcache update
A bcache update
Posted May 17, 2012 6:30 UTC (Thu) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)In reply to: A bcache update by koverstreet
Parent article: A bcache update
In a typical journalling filesystem, it is usually only the journal entries that need to be synchronously flushed at all. Most writes can be applied independently. If a mounted filesystem had two or more I/O "threads" (or flows), one for journal and synchronous data writes, and one for ordinary data writes, an intelligent lower layer could handle a barrier on one thread by flushing a small amount of journal data, while the other one takes its own sweet time - with a persistent cache, even across a system restart if necessary.
Otherwise, the larger the write cache, the larger the delay when a journal commit comes along. Call it a block layer version of buffer bloat. As with networking, other than making the buffer smaller, the typical solution is to use multiple class or flow based queues. If you don't have flow based queuing, you really don't want much of a buffer at all, because it causes latency to skyrocket.
As a consequence, I don't see how write back caching can help very much here, unless all writes (or at least meta data for all out of order writes) are queued in the cache, so that write ordering is not broken. Am I wrong?