Subject: Re: test of new powerdown facility
To: Erik E. Fair <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 06/09/1998 13:15:53
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:10:37 -0700
"Erik E. Fair" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The other issue here might simply be a failure of the kernel to wait long
> enough for I/O to complete.
If you issue the SYNCHRONIZE CACHE command _without_ the Immed bit set,
and wait for it to complete, then you are guaranteed that the data is on
As far as the kernel knew, the I/O was done; it got an interrupt saying
so... I don't think inserting a delay is going to do any good... you just
need to make sure the cache is flushed by forcing it out.
> This is not to say that a "SYNCHRONIZE CACHE" command sent to *all* disks
> at any halt or powerdown event (and maybe in sync(2)?) is not a good idea...
I dunno about sync(2) ... there's not really a mechanism for the VFS code
to do this...
Jason R. Thorpe email@example.com
NASA Ames Research Center Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5 Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: +1 650 428 6939