From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o13BQi7M225072 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:26:45 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 06:27:53 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] xfs: xfs_fs_write_inode() can fail to write inodes synchronously V2 Message-ID: <20100203112753.GA19996@infradead.org> References: <1265153104-29680-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1265153104-29680-10-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1265153104-29680-10-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.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: Dave Chinner Cc: bpm@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com Still not entirely happy with this one. The first one is that I think the barriers in fsync are still too heavy for the normal sync use case. I'd be more happy with exporting the body of xfs_fsync without the cache flushes (and a ebtter name than xfs_fsync) and use that for write_inode. That leaves open the NFSD case thought. I'd prefer to have that fixed if possibly. Ben, any chance you could send your patch to use fsync to the nfs list ASAP? I think we'd be even better off to just force -o wsync and disable ->write_inode entirely for NFS, any chance you could test such a patch on your setup? Besides that the patch is missing the comment from the previous iteration why we're still doing the delwri iflush for the sync == 1 case. I think keeping that one is important to explain the really weird reason for it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs