[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF96824E74.387F8AD7-ON88257458.005D1BC3-88257458.005E2EC4@us.ibm.com>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists