[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49hbj8bxh6.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:44:53 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, djwong@...ibm.com,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Keith Mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <mcao@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext4: Don't send extra barrier during fsync if there are no dirty pages.
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:13:44PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> > IO_CMD_FSYNC doesn't exist right now, but sure, it means we don't have
>>
>> Well, there's IOCB_CMD_FSYNC. But still, this isn't the same thing as
>> what's requested. If I understand correctly, what is requested is a
>> mechanism to flush out all data for multiple file descriptors and follow
>> that with a single barrier/flush (and yes, Ted did give a summary of the
>> commands that would be required to accomplish that).
>>
>> There still remains the question of why this should be tied to the AIO
>> submission interface.
>
> I don't think it should, personally. The only excuse might be if
> someone wanted to do an asynchronous fsync(), but I don't think that
> makes sense in most cases.
In case it wasn't clear, we are in agreement on this.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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