[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1232021211.14626.19.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:06:51 +0900
From: Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: ext2 + -osync: not as easy as it seems
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:59 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 03:37:56PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Um, we have that already; the sync_inode() followed by
> > > blkdev_issue_flush() is the path taken by fdatasync(), I do believe.
> >
> > Maybe ext4-patch-queue changes that area but in Linus's tree I see:
> >
> > if (datasync && !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC))
> > goto out;
> >
> > So if we just overwrite some data, we send them to disk via fdatawrite()
> > and then we quickly bail out from ext4_sync_file() without doing
> > blkdev_issue_flush().
>
> So you're thinking about fdatawrite() being called by some code path
> other than ext4_sync_file() before we call fsync()? Yeah, that could
> happen.... I think that will only happen if the file is opened
> O_SYNC, but that raises another issue, which is that we're not forcing
> a flush for writes when the file is opened O_SYNC.
Hi Jan, Ted
Is something like the patch below what you had in mind?
--
From: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: ext3: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync
To ensure that bits are truly on-disk after an fsync or fdatasync, we
should call blkdev_issue_flush if barriers are supported.
Signed-off-by: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
---
--- linux-2.6.29-rc1-orig/fs/ext4/fsync.c 2008-12-25 08:26:37.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.29-rc1/fs/ext4/fsync.c 2009-01-15 21:03:19.000000000 +0900
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ int ext4_sync_file(struct file *file, st
{
struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
journal_t *journal = EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_journal;
+ unsigned long i_state = inode->i_state;
int ret = 0;
J_ASSERT(ext4_journal_current_handle() == NULL);
@@ -79,22 +80,35 @@ int ext4_sync_file(struct file *file, st
goto out;
}
- if (datasync && !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC))
- goto out;
+ if (datasync && !(i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC))
+ goto flush_blkdev;
/*
* The VFS has written the file data. If the inode is unaltered
* then we need not start a commit.
*/
- if (inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY_SYNC|I_DIRTY_DATASYNC)) {
+ if (i_state & (I_DIRTY_SYNC|I_DIRTY_DATASYNC)) {
struct writeback_control wbc = {
.sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL,
.nr_to_write = 0, /* sys_fsync did this */
};
ret = sync_inode(inode, &wbc);
- if (journal && (journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER))
- blkdev_issue_flush(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, NULL);
+ /*
+ * When there are no blocks attached to the journal transaction
+ * some optimizations are possible, but if there were dirty
+ * pages sync_inode() should have ensured that all data gets
+ * actually written to disk. Thus, we can skip
+ * blkdev_issue_flush() below.
+ */
+ if (!(i_state & I_DIRTY_PAGES))
+ goto flush_blkdev;
}
+
+ goto out;
+
+flush_blkdev:
+ if (journal && (journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER))
+ blkdev_issue_flush(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, NULL);
out:
return ret;
}
--
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