[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090327141333.GS6239@mit.edu>
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:13:33 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, David Rees <drees76@...il.com>,
	Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:57:23AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> Here's a simple patch that does that. Not even tested, it compiles. Note
> that file systems that currently do blkdev_issue_flush() in their
> ->sync() should then get it removed.
> 
That's going to be a mess.  Ext3 implements an fsync() by requesting a
journal commit, and then waiting for the commit to have taken place.
The commit happens in another thread, kjournald.  Knowing when it's OK
not to do a blkdev_issue_flush() because the commit was triggered by
an fsync() is going to be really messy.  Could we at least have a flag
in struct super which says, "We'll handle the flush correctly, please
don't try to do it for us?"
						- Ted
--
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
 
