[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080520154313.GI16676@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:43:14 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:09:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > To ensure that bits are truly on-disk after an fsync,
> > we should call blkdev_issue_flush if barriers are supported.
>
> This patch isn't necessary, and in fact will cause a double flush.
> When you call fsync(), it calls ext4_force_commit(), and we do a the
> equivalent of a blkdev_issue_flush() today (which is what happenes
> when you do a submit_bh(WRITE_BARRIER, bh), which is what setting
> set_ordered_mode(bh) ends up causing.
ISTR fsync() on ext3 did not always force a commit, if in-place data
writes did not change any metadata. Has this been fixed in ext4 but
not ext3 then?
Does WRITE_BARRIER always cause a flush? It does not have to
according to Documentation/block/barrier.txt. There are caveats about
tagged queuing "not yet implemented" in the text, but can we rely on
that? The documentation is older than the current implementation;
those caveats might no longer apply.
-- Jamie
--
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