[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070601075336.GX86004887@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:53:36 +1000
From: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, david@...g.hm,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Bader <Stefan.Bader@...ibm.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:59:51PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday June 1, dgc@....com wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:31:21PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> > > David Chinner wrote:
> > > >That sounds like a good idea - we can leave the existing
> > > >WRITE_BARRIER behaviour unchanged and introduce a new WRITE_ORDERED
> > > >behaviour that only guarantees ordering. The filesystem can then
> > > >choose which to use where appropriate....
> > >
> > > So what if you want a synchronous write, but DON'T care about the order?
> >
> > submit_bio(WRITE_SYNC, bio);
> >
> > Already there, already used by XFS, JFS and direct I/O.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> You seem to be saying that WRITE_SYNC causes the write to be safe on
> media before the request returns.
Sorry, I wasn't really all that clear :/
What I'm saying the *interface* for higher layer to tell the block layers
that a sync write is being executed is already there. i.e. we can already
tell the block layer that we are doing a synchronous I/O.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists