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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:50:30 -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: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39195 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106Ab2C3OvE (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:51:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120329225743.GC18323@dastard> (Dave Chinner's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:57:43 +1100") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? Cheers, Jeff