public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	tux3@tux3.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize wait_sb_inodes()
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:36:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130627183631.GB22832@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mwqb3m1e.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>

Let's go up a level.  Why are you so focused on optimizing sync(2)?
What's the use case where you anticipate applications using sync(2) or
syncfs(2)?    Or is this for the purpose of Tux3's benchmarketing?

In practice, sync(2) as a data integrity mechanism is a bit
heavyweight for most applications.  In general the complaint with ext3
or ext4 is that fsync(2) is forcing a full filesystem-wide sync, and
not just a sync specific to the file.

System administrators use it sometimes[1], sometimes out of superstition,
but how many applications actually use it?  And why?

[1] In fact, I've heard an argument that sync(2) should be optionally
made privileged and only accessible to root, since there were cases
where system administrators would login to a heavily loaded server as
a non-privileged user, type "sync" out of reflex or habit, and the
resulting huge amounts of I/O would blow the 99.9th percentile latency
guarantees for all of the latency-sensitive services running on that
server.

If the goal is to optimize file system freeze operations, sure.  But
that's also not a common operation, so if it burns a little extra CPU
time, it wouldn't cause me to think that it was a high priority issue.
Decreasing the wall clock time for a file system freeze operation
would probably be a far more interesting goal.

Regards,

						- Ted

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-27 18:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-26  8:45 [PATCH] Optimize wait_sb_inodes() OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-26 14:32 ` Jörn Engel
2013-06-27  0:01   ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-26 23:11 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-27  0:14   ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-27  4:47     ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-27  5:18       ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-27  6:38         ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-27  7:22           ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-27  9:40             ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-27 10:06               ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-27 18:36                 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2013-06-27 23:37                   ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-27 23:45                     ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-06-28  0:30                       ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-28  5:23                         ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-28  7:39                           ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2013-06-28  3:00                   ` Daniel Phillips
2013-06-27  7:22         ` Daniel Phillips
2013-06-27  5:50       ` Daniel Phillips

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130627183631.GB22832@thunk.org \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tux3@tux3.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox