[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201105300913.27971.oneukum@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 09:13:27 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: "D. Jansen" <d.g.jansen@...glemail.com>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
njs@...ox.com, bart@...wel.tk
Subject: Re: [rfc] Ignore Fsync Calls in Laptop_Mode
Am Montag, 30. Mai 2011, 03:53:18 schrieb david@...g.hm:
> > So what if we would queue the fsyncs along with the writes - we would
> > just fsync later instead of immediately, in between the writes as they
> > came in. Then by design previous data could not be corrupted, right?
> > We would do exactly the same thing, just later.
> > It'd be kind of a disk write time distortion field.
>
> the problem is that the spec for fsync says that your program stops until
> fsync finishes. If you don't do that then you will corrupt and loose data.
It is important to be precise.
You will loose data, but you will not get corruption.
> so if you delay fsync you will have your application (or desktop manager)
> freeze until the fsync completes.
>
> if what you are wanting is the ability to say 'these things must be
> written before these other things to keep them from being corrupted, but I
> don't care when they get written (or if they get lost in a crash)' then
> what you want isn't fsync, it's a barrier.
Yes, but where is the problem?
Regards
Oliver
--
- - -
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstraße 5
90409 Nürnberg
Germany
- - -
--
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