From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p952NjDx078776 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:23:45 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimize fsync on directories From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20111002142516.GA6361@infradead.org> References: <20111002142516.GA6361@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:23:40 -0500 Message-ID: <1317781420.2270.4.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 10:25 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Directories are only updated transactionally, which means fsync only > needs to flush the log the inode is currently dirty, but not bother > with checking for dirty data, non-transaction updates, an most importanly > doesn't have to flush disk caches except as part of a transaction commit. > > While the first two optimizations can't easily be measured the latter > actually make a difference when doing lots of fsync that do not actually > have to commit the inode, e.g. becase an ealier fsync already pushed > the log far enough. > > The new xfs_dir_fsync is identifical to xfs_nfs_commit_metadata except > for the prototype, but I'm not sure creating a common helper for the > two is worth it given how simple the functions are. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Looks good. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs