Re: Linux 2.6.29

Linus Torvalds
2009-03-25T20:48:42Z

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> It is clearly possible to implement an fsync(2) that causes FLUSH CACHE to be
> issued, without adding full barrier support to a filesystem. It is likely
> doable to avoid touching per-filesystem code at all, if we issue the flush
> from a generic fsync(2) code path in the kernel.

We could easily do that. It would even work for most cases. The
problematic ones are where filesystems do their own disk management, but I
guess those people can do their own fsync() management too.

Somebody send me the patch, we can try it out.

> Remember, fsync(2) means that the user _expects_ a performance hit.

Within reason, though.

OS X, for example, doesn't do the disk barrier. It requires you to do a
separate FULL_FSYNC (or something similar) ioctl to get that. Apparently
exactly because users don't expect quite _that_ big of a performance hit.

(Or maybe just because it was easier to do that way. Never attribute to
malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity).

Linus