[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140314130712.GC12613@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:07:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Roman Peniaev <r.peniaev@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/mpage.c: forgotten WRITE_SYNC in case of data
integrity write
Hello, Andrew.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 02:34:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jens isn't talking to us. Tejun, are you able explain REQ_SYNC?
It has nothing to do with data integrity. It's just a hint telling
the block layer that someone is waiting for the IO so it'd be a good
idea to prioritize it. For example, nothing visible to userland
really waits for periodic writebacks, so we can delay their processing
to prioritize, for example, READs triggered from a page fault, which
is obviously causing userland visible latency.
Block layer treats all READs as REQ_SYNC and also allows upper layers
to mark some writes REQ_SYNC for cases where somebody is waiting for
the write to complete for cases like flush(2).
> From: Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com>
> Subject: fs/mpage.c: forgotten WRITE_SYNC in case of data integrity write
>
> In case of wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL we need to do data integrity
> write, thus mark request as WRITE_SYNC.
So, at least this patch description is very misleading. WRITE_SYNC
has *NOTHING* to do with data integrity. The only thing matters is
whether somebody is waiting for its completion or not.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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