[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090112023138.GD6428@shareable.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:31:38 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Grissiom <chaos.proton@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special() while holding sb_lock
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > - removing a million files and queuing all of the
> > deletes in the async queues....
>
> the async code throttles at 32k outstanding.
> Yes 32K is arbitrary, but if you delete a million files fast, all but the
> first few thousand are
> synchronous.
Hmm.
If I call unlink() a thousand times and then call fsync() on the
parent directories covering files I've unlinked... I expect the
deletes to be committed to disk when the last fsync() has returned. I
require that a crash and restart will not see the files. Several
kinds of transactional software and even some shell scripts expect this.
Will these asynchronous deletes break the guaranteed
commit-of-the-delete provided by fsync() on the parent directory?
-- Jamie
--
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