[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090824092905.GA10080@duck.novell.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:29:05 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
hch@....de, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/17] Make O_SYNC handling use standard syncing path
(Version 2)
On Sat 22-08-09 17:27:11, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > The patch set unifines O_SYNC handling with standard fsync() path. After this,
> > we have just one place forcing a single file to disk so filesystems like ext3 /
> > ext4 don't have to force a transaction commit in ext?_file_write for O_SYNC
> > files / IS_SYNC inodes. The code is also cleaner this way (actually about 150
> > lines shorter), we don't sync the inode several times as it happened previously
> > etc.
>
> Afaik, O_SYNC requires just the written data to be committed to disk,
> but fsync() requires all dirty data for the file (including written by
> other processes / descriptors) to be committed to disk.
>
> So doing the equivalent of fsync() after write might be the wrong
> thing to do.
It's OK, we essentially end up doing fdatasync() on the range of the file
where the write happened. So no unnecessary writing happens.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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