Re: [patch] fix the ext3 data=journal unmount bug

[Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>]

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 16:22, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 20:34, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> > The bulk of the sync(2) will be async though, since most of the io is
> > actually writing dirty data buffers out.  We already do that in two
> > stages.
> 
> Not with data journaling.  That's the whole point: the VFS assumes too
> much about where the data is being written, when.

But with data journaling, there's a limited amount data pending that
needs to be sent to the log.  It isn't like the data pages in the
data=writeback, where there might be gigs and gigs worth of pages.  

Most data=journal setups are for synchronous writes, where the
transactions will be small, so sending things to the log won't take
long.

> 
> > For 2.5, if an FS really wanted a two stage sync for it's non-data
> > pages
> 
> But it's data that is the problem.  For sync() semantics,
> data-journaling only requires that the pages have hit the journal.  For
> umount, it is critical that we complete the final writeback before
> destroying the inode lists.

Well, I was trying to find a word for pages involved w/the journal and
failed ;-)  My only real point is we can add an async sync without
changing the way supers get processed.

It seems like a natural progression to start adding journal address
spaces to deal with this instead of extra stuff in the super code, where
locking and super flag semantics make things sticky.

-chris