[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080526100751.GB24507@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 06:07:51 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 421482] Firefox 3 uses fsync excessively
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:05:06AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's purportedly showing that fdatasync() on ext3 is syncing the whole
> world in fsync()-fashion even with an application which does not grow
> the file size.
>
> But fdatasync() shouldn't do that. Even if the inode is dirty from
> atime or mtime updates, that shouldn't cause fdatasync() to run an
> ext3 commit?
Well, ideally it shouldn't, although POSIX allows fdatasync() to be
implemented in terms of fsync(). It is at the moment. :-/
The problem is we don't currently have a way of distinguishing between
a "smudged" inode (only the mtime/atime has changed) and a "dirty"
inode (even if the number of blocks hasn't changed, if i_size has
changed, or i_mode, or anything else, including extended attributes
inline in the inode). We're not tracking that difference. If we only
allow mtime/atime changes through setattr (see Cristoph's patches),
and don't set the VFS dirty bit, but our own "smudged" bit, we could
do it --- but at the moment, we're not.
- 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