[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080519144654.GC15035@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:46:54 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
jamie@...reable.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:26:41AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > Didn't ext4 have some new checksum trick to avoid them?
>
> I didn't think checksumming avoided barriers completely. Just the barrier
> before the commit block, not the barrier after.
Funny thing, I was looking in this over the weekend. It currently
avoids barriers entirely if journal_async_commit is enabled (which is
not the default); if enabled, it effectively forces barrier=0. This
is IMHO a bug.
I'm working on a patch where "barrier=1" will use a barrier before and
after, and "barrier=1,journal_async_commit" will use a barrier after.
- Ted
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists