Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:06:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:06:44 -0500 Received: from noodles.codemonkey.org.uk ([62.49.180.5]:23722 "EHLO noodles.codemonkey.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:06:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:08:06 +0000 From: Dave Jones To: Linux Kernel Cc: andrea@suse.de, davej@codemonkey.org.uk Subject: Possible O_DIRECT problems ? Message-ID: <20011221000806.A26849@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , andrea@suse.de, davej@codemonkey.org.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea, lk, I just experimented with O_DIRECT in conjunction with fsx, and the results aren't pretty. Over NFS it survives around 921 operations, all local filesystems (ext2,ext3,reiser tested) just 6 operations. I've put the source to a modified fsx at http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/cruft/fsx-odirect.c It's possible I've done something wrong here, so look it over. Just adding O_DIRECT flag to open() should be all thats necessary correct ? Also note, that by changing the flags on line 988 to have O_DIRECT also, we get different failure type. So, did I get the usage of O_DIRECT correct and find some bugs, or have I had a little too much xmas spirits already ? 8-) Dave. -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs . - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/