[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121121165436.GB30250@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:54:36 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
tytso@....edu, david@...morbit.com, bpm@....com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous
direct I/O requests
On Wed 21-11-12 09:09:41, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
>
> >> Just to be clear, are you saying you would like me to remove the
> >> mutex_lock/unlock pair from ext4_sync_file? (I had already factored out
> >> the common code between this new code path and the fsync path in my tree.)
> > Yes, after some thinking I came to that conclusion. We actually need to
> > keep i_mutex around ext4_flush_unwritten_io() to avoid livelocks but the
> > rest doesn't need it. The change should be definitely a separate patch just
> > in case there's something subtle I missed and we need to bisect in
> > future... I've attached a patch for that so that blame for bugs goes my way
> > ;) Compile tested only so far. I'll give it some more testing overnight.
>
> Great, thanks Jan! I'll include this in the next posting.
OK, patch passed xfstests and a test banging one file with random IO and
fsyncs from 8 processes (in data=ordered, data=journal, and nojournal
modes). So it seems I didn't miss anything substantial. So ship it! ;)
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