| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests |
| From: | Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:50:30 -0400 |
| Cc: | linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20120329225743.GC18323@dastard> (Dave Chinner's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:57:43 +1100") |
| References: | <1333058705-31512-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> <1333058705-31512-6-git-send-email-jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120329225743.GC18323@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi, Dave, Thanks for the review! > or better still, factor xfs_file_fsync() so that it calls a helper > that doesn't wait for data IO completion, and call that helper here > too. The semantics of fsync/fdatasync are too complex to have to > implement and maintain in multiple locations.... I definitely agree with consolidating things. However, there are four blocking calls in xfs_file_fsync (filemap_write_and_wait_range, xfs_blkdev_issue_flush, _xfs_log_force_lsn, and another call to xfs_blkdev_issue_flush). How would you propose to make that non-blocking given that those steps have to happen in sequence? Cheers, Jeff |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Buffalo LS-Q4.0 Raid 5 XFS errors, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 1/2] xfs_fsr: extra debugging info, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests, Jeff Moyer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |