From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: notes on volatile write caches vs fdatasync Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:49:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20090827184948.GA1367@lst.de> References: <20090827011624.GA10405@lst.de> <20090827130252.GC14240@duck.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, tytso@mit.edu, adilger@sun.com, swhiteho@redhat.com, konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp, mfasheh@suse.com, joel.becker@oracle.com To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:60407 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751543AbZH0SuW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:50:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090827130252.GC14240@duck.novell.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:02:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > I've noticed this as well when we were tracking some problems Pavel > Machek found with his USB stick. I even wrote a patch at the time > http://osdir.com/ml/linux-ext4/2009-01/msg00015.html > but it somehow died out. Now, the situation should be simpler with > fsync paths cleaned up... BTW: People wanted this to be configurable per > block device which probably makes sence... Yeah, that patch is pretty ugly. We need to do these cache flushes in ->fsync (and ->sync_fs if any filesystem really doesn't guarantee to issue transaction there after data has been written). Adding it to simple_fsync too sounds good to me.