linux-ext4 - Re: fdatasync/barriers (was : [Bug 421482] Firefox 3 uses fsync excessively)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 May 2008 10:08:44 -0700
From:	Bryan Henderson <hbryan@...ibm.com>
To:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Subject: Re: fdatasync/barriers (was : [Bug 421482] Firefox 3 uses fsync excessively)

> Here's a thought for someone implementing fdatasync().  If a database
> uses O_DIRECT writes (typically with aio), then wants data which it's
> written to be committed to the hard disk platter, and the filesystem
> is mounted "barrier=1" - should it call fdatasync()?  Should that emit
> the barrier?  If another application uses normal (not O_DIRECT)
> writes, and then _is delayed_ so long that kernel writeback occurs and
> all cache is clean, and then calls fdatasync(), should that call emit
> a barrier in that case?  (Answers imho: yes and yes).

I don't get it.  What would be the value of emitting the barrier?

--
Bryan Henderson                     IBM Almaden Research Center
San Jose CA                         Filesystems

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html