[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090828230623.GD8036@shareable.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:23 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> - given that our current O_SYNC really is and always has been actuall
> Posix O_DSYNC
Are you sure about this?
>From http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1IZ01704 :
Error description
LINUX O_DIRECT/O_SYNC TAKES TOO MANY IOS
Problem summary
On AIX, the O_SYNC and O_DSYNC are different values and
performance improvement are available because the inode does
not need to be flushed for mtime changes only.
On Linux the flags are the same, so performance is lost.
when databases open files with O_DIRECT and O_SYNC.
-- 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