[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49pqxwc1p3.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:13:44 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, djwong@...ibm.com,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Keith Mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <mcao@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext4: Don't send extra barrier during fsync if there are no dirty pages.
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 05:20:12AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> Why not? To be clear, I'm talking about an io_submit() with
>> multiple IO_CMD_FSYNC requests, with a kernel implementation that is
>> able to batch these requests.
>
> IO_CMD_FSYNC doesn't exist right now, but sure, it means we don't have
Well, there's IOCB_CMD_FSYNC. But still, this isn't the same thing as
what's requested. If I understand correctly, what is requested is a
mechanism to flush out all data for multiple file descriptors and follow
that with a single barrier/flush (and yes, Ted did give a summary of the
commands that would be required to accomplish that).
There still remains the question of why this should be tied to the AIO
submission interface.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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