From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xfs: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1333058705-31512-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> <1333058705-31512-6-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> <20120329225743.GC18323@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, jack@suse.cz, hch@infradead.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Jeff Moyer's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:45:37 -0400") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jeff Moyer writes: > Jeff Moyer writes: > >> 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? > > OK, so re-reading your mail, I think you meant to just factor out > everything except the filemap_write_and_wait_range. Here are a couple > of patches which do that. Also, since we're not worried about blocking > in the endio processing, just making things synchronous makes the code a > lot simpler. Let me know what you think of the attached two patches > (which I've already run through xfstests). Dave, ping? Did you have a chance to take a look at these patches? Cheers, Jeff