From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932971AbYETTy6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 15:54:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758608AbYETTyq (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 15:54:46 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:20505 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756896AbYETTyp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 15:54:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 21:54:37 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Theodore Tso , Eric Sandeen , ext4 development , linux-kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync Message-ID: <20080520195437.GZ22369@kernel.dk> References: <482DDA56.6000301@redhat.com> <482DDC04.7020706@redhat.com> <20080520023454.GM15035@mit.edu> <20080520154313.GI16676@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080520154313.GI16676@shareable.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 20 2008, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Does WRITE_BARRIER always cause a flush? It does not have to > according to Documentation/block/barrier.txt. There are caveats about > tagged queuing "not yet implemented" in the text, but can we rely on > that? The documentation is older than the current implementation; > those caveats might no longer apply. It does, if you use ordered tags then that assumes write through caching (or ordered tag + drain + flush after completion). -- Jens Axboe