[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:41 -0500
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>, axboe@xxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bpm@xxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121121005626.GC10507@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Jan Kara's message of "Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:56:26 +0100")
References: <20121120074116.24645.36369.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121120074131.24645.38489.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121120100751.GB1408@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <x49sj84hwl4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121121005626.GC10507@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> 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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>