[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090114140802.GC30821@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:08:04 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: ext2 + -osync: not as easy as it seems
On Wed, Jan 14 2009, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean; if the barrier operation isn't flushing
> > all of the caches all the way out to the iron oxide, it's not going to
> > be working properly no matter where it is being called, whether it's
> > in ext4_sync_file() or in jbd2's journal_submit_commit_record().
> Well, I thought that a barrier, as an abstraction, only guarantees that
> any IO which happened before the barrier hits the iron before any IO which
> has been submitted after a barrier. This is actually enough for a
> journalling to work correctly but it's not enough for fsync() guarantees.
> But I might be wrong...
It also guarentees that when you get a completion for that barrier
write, it's on safe storage. Think of it as a flush-write-flush
operation, in the presence of write back caching.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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