[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4832F3C6.1050601@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:38 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
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
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 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.
I think that might still be true, but I'm still looking through it (in
the background...)
I tried blktrace to see what was going on but I'm not sure what an "NB"
in the RWBS field means, anyone know?
-Eric
--
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