[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49obqng3ux.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:04:22 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, jack@...e.cz, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
>
>> Hi, Dave,
>>
>> Thanks for the review!
>>
>>> or better still, factor xfs_file_fsync() so that it calls a helper
>>> that doesn't wait for data IO completion, and call that helper here
>>> too. The semantics of fsync/fdatasync are too complex to have to
>>> implement and maintain in multiple locations....
>>
>> I definitely agree with consolidating things. However, there are four
>> blocking calls in xfs_file_fsync (filemap_write_and_wait_range,
>> xfs_blkdev_issue_flush, _xfs_log_force_lsn, and another call to
>> xfs_blkdev_issue_flush). How would you propose to make that
>> non-blocking given that those steps have to happen in sequence?
>
> OK, so re-reading your mail, I think you meant to just factor out
> everything except the filemap_write_and_wait_range. Here are a couple
> of patches which do that. Also, since we're not worried about blocking
> in the endio processing, just making things synchronous makes the code a
> lot simpler. Let me know what you think of the attached two patches
> (which I've already run through xfstests).
Dave, ping? Did you have a chance to take a look at these patches?
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