[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50A56E43.3040805@genband.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:35:47 -0600
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To: Ryan Johnson <ryan.johnson@...utoronto.ca>
CC: General Discussion of SQLite Database <sqlite-users@...ite.org>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
Nico Williams <nico@...ptonector.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Hipp <drh@...ci.com>
Subject: Re: [sqlite] light weight write barriers
On 11/15/2012 11:06 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> The easiest way to implement this fsync would involve three things:
> 1. Schedule writes for all dirty pages in the fs cache that belong to
> the affected file, wait for the device to report success, issue a cache
> flush to the device (or request ordering commands, if available) to make
> it tell the truth, and wait for the device to report success. AFAIK this
> already happens, but without taking advantage of any request ordering
> commands.
> 2. The requesting thread returns as soon as the kernel has identified
> all data that will be written back. This is new, but pretty similar to
> what AIO already does.
> 3. No write is allowed to enqueue any requests at the device that
> involve the same file, until all outstanding fsync complete [3]. This is
> new.
This sounds interesting as a way to expose some useful semantics to
userspace.
I assume we'd need to come up with a new syscall or something since it
doesn't match the behaviour of posix fsync().
Chris
--
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