[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52C6F22A.4040202@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:23:54 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Huang Weller (CM/ESW12-CN)" <Weller.Huang@...bosch.com>
CC: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"Juergens Dirk (CM-AI/ECO2)" <Dirk.Juergens@...bosch.com>
Subject: Re: ext4 filesystem bad extent error review
On 1/3/14, 9:48 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:16:02AM +0800, Huang Weller (CM/ESW12-CN) wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like the barrier test. We wrote such kind test tool
>> before, the test program used ioctl(fd, BLKFLSBUF, 0) to set a
>> barrier before next write operation. Do you think this ioctl is
>> enough ? Because I saw the ext4 use it. I will do the test with that
>> tool and then let you know the result.
>
> The BLKFLSBUF ioctl does __not__ send a CACHE FLUSH command to the
> hardware device. It forces all of the dirty buffers in memory to the
> storage device, and then it invalidates all the buffer cache, but it
> does not send a CACHE FLUSH command to the hardware. Hence, the
> hardware is free to write it to its on-disk cache, and not necessarily
> guarantee that the data is written to stable store. (For an example
> use case of BLKFLSBUF, we use it in e2fsck to drop the buffer cache
> for benchmarking purposes.)
Are you sure? for a bdev w/ ext4 on it:
BLKFLSBUF
fsync_bdev
sync_filesystem
sync_fs
ext4_sync_fs
blkdev_issue_flush
-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