[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201011291618.25084.bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:18:24 +0100
From: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug#605009: serious performance regression with ext4
On Monday, November 29, 2010, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> By using sync_file_range() first, for all files, this forces the
> delayed allocation to be resolved, so all of the block bitmaps, inode
> data structures, etc., are updated. Then on the first fdatasync(),
> the resulting journal commit updates all of the block bitmaps and all
> of the inode table blocks(), and we're done. The subsequent
> fdatasync() calls become no-ops --- which the ftrace shell script will
> show.
Wouldn't it make sense to modify ext4 or even the vfs to do that on close()
itself? Most applications expect the file to be on disk after a close anyway
and I also don't see a good reason why one should delay a disk write-back
after close any longer (well, there are exeption if the application is broken,
for example such as ha-logd used by pacemaker, which did for each line of logs
an open, seek, write, flush, close sequence..., but at least we have fixed
that in -hg now).
Cheers,
Bernd
--
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