From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:43:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080520154313.GI16676@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080520023454.GM15035@mit.edu>
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:09:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > To ensure that bits are truly on-disk after an fsync,
> > we should call blkdev_issue_flush if barriers are supported.
>
> This patch isn't necessary, and in fact will cause a double flush.
> When you call fsync(), it calls ext4_force_commit(), and we do a the
> equivalent of a blkdev_issue_flush() today (which is what happenes
> when you do a submit_bh(WRITE_BARRIER, bh), which is what setting
> set_ordered_mode(bh) ends up causing.
ISTR fsync() on ext3 did not always force a commit, if in-place data
writes did not change any metadata. Has this been fixed in ext4 but
not ext3 then?
Does WRITE_BARRIER always cause a flush? It does not have to
according to Documentation/block/barrier.txt. There are caveats about
tagged queuing "not yet implemented" in the text, but can we rely on
that? The documentation is older than the current implementation;
those caveats might no longer apply.
-- Jamie
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:43:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080520154313.GI16676@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080520023454.GM15035@mit.edu>
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:09:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > To ensure that bits are truly on-disk after an fsync,
> > we should call blkdev_issue_flush if barriers are supported.
>
> This patch isn't necessary, and in fact will cause a double flush.
> When you call fsync(), it calls ext4_force_commit(), and we do a the
> equivalent of a blkdev_issue_flush() today (which is what happenes
> when you do a submit_bh(WRITE_BARRIER, bh), which is what setting
> set_ordered_mode(bh) ends up causing.
ISTR fsync() on ext3 did not always force a commit, if in-place data
writes did not change any metadata. Has this been fixed in ext4 but
not ext3 then?
Does WRITE_BARRIER always cause a flush? It does not have to
according to Documentation/block/barrier.txt. There are caveats about
tagged queuing "not yet implemented" in the text, but can we rely on
that? The documentation is older than the current implementation;
those caveats might no longer apply.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-20 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-16 19:02 [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 19:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] ext3: enable barriers by default Eric Sandeen
2008-05-19 8:58 ` Pavel Machek
2008-05-16 19:07 ` [PATCH 2/4] ext3: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 22:15 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-16 19:08 ` [PATCH 3/4] ext4: enable barriers by default Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 19:09 ` [PATCH 4/4] ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync Eric Sandeen
2008-05-20 2:34 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-20 15:43 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2008-05-20 15:43 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 15:52 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-20 15:52 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-20 15:52 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-20 20:14 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-20 19:54 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-20 19:54 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-20 22:02 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 7:30 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-16 20:05 ` [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes Andrew Morton
2008-05-16 20:53 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-16 21:45 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-16 22:03 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 22:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-16 22:03 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-16 22:21 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 22:53 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-17 0:20 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-17 0:35 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-17 13:43 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-17 17:59 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-05-17 17:59 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-05-17 17:59 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-05-17 20:44 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-20 14:45 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 14:45 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-18 0:48 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-18 1:36 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-18 14:49 ` Ric Wheeler
2008-05-18 14:49 ` Ric Wheeler
2008-05-20 14:42 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 23:48 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-18 14:49 ` Ric Wheeler
[not found] ` <4830420D.4080608__28835.4277647615$1211137279$gmane$org@gmail.com>
2008-05-18 19:59 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-18 16:07 ` Ric Wheeler
2008-05-20 23:44 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-18 20:03 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-19 0:43 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-19 2:29 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-19 2:29 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-19 2:29 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-19 4:11 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-19 17:16 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-19 18:39 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-19 22:39 ` Jan Kara
2008-05-20 0:29 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-20 3:29 ` Timothy Shimmin
2008-05-20 12:04 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-20 8:25 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-20 12:17 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-21 11:22 ` Pavel Machek
2008-05-21 12:32 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-21 18:03 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-21 18:15 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-21 19:43 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 18:29 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-21 18:49 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-21 19:42 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 19:36 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 19:36 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 19:36 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 19:40 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-21 19:54 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 14:58 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 22:30 ` Daniel Phillips
2008-05-20 23:35 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-19 0:28 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-20 15:13 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 15:13 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-21 20:25 ` Greg Smith
2008-05-20 15:13 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-16 22:30 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-18 19:54 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-19 13:26 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-19 14:46 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-20 2:51 ` [PATCH, RFC] ext4: Fix use of write barrier in commit logic Theodore Tso
2008-05-20 2:51 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-20 2:51 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-20 15:23 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 15:23 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 15:23 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-23 18:33 ` [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes Ric Wheeler
2008-05-23 18:33 ` Ric Wheeler
2008-05-23 18:33 ` Ric Wheeler
2008-05-20 15:36 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 16:02 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-20 16:27 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-20 17:08 ` Chris Mason
2008-05-20 22:26 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-19 9:04 ` Pavel Machek
2008-05-29 13:36 ` Eric Sandeen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-05-16 14:37 [PATCH 0/4] " Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 14:37 ` [PATCH 4/4] ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync Eric Sandeen
2008-05-16 14:37 ` Eric Sandeen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080520154313.GI16676@shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.