[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DE8555E.7040404@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:30:38 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Query about DIO/AIO WRITE throttling and ext4 serialization
On 6/2/11 8:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:54:03PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> Just wondering why ext4 and XFS behavior are different and which is a
>> more appropriate behavior. ext4 does not seem to be waiting for all
>> pending AIO/DIO to finish while XFS does.
>
> They're both wrong. Ext4 completely misses support in fsync or sync
> to catch pending unwrittent extent conversions, and thus fails to obey
> the data integrity guarante.
I'm not sure about that.
ext4_sync_file() does ext4_flush_completed_IO() which does:
* When IO is completed, the work to convert unwritten extents to
* written is queued on workqueue but may not get immediately
* scheduled. When fsync is called, we need to ensure the
* conversion is complete before fsync returns.
* The inode keeps track of a list of pending/completed IO that
* might needs to do the conversion. This function walks through
* the list and convert the related unwritten extents for completed IO
* to written.
Granted, I get easily lost in ext4's codepaths here, which is actually
why I suggested Vivek pose these questions to the list ;)
-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