From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Whitehouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push i_mutex and filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:54:44 +0100 Message-ID: <1309769684.2704.0.camel@menhir> References: <1309275310-10987-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org To: Josef Bacik Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1029 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753995Ab1GDIwy (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:52:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1309275310-10987-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 11:35 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Btrfs needs to be able to control how filemap_write_and_wait_range() is called > in fsync to make it less of a painful operation, so push down taking i_mutex and > the calling of filemap_write_and_wait() down into the ->fsync() handlers. Some > file systems can drop taking the i_mutex altogether it seems, like ext3 and > ocfs2. For correctness sake I just pushed everything down in all cases to make > sure that we keep the current behavior the same for everybody, and then each > individual fs maintainer can make up their mind about what to do from there. > Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik The GFS2 bit looks ok to me... Acked-by: Steven Whitehouse Steve.