Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755692AbYLVW6Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:58:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754643AbYLVW6P (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:58:15 -0500 Received: from sca-es-mail-1.Sun.COM ([192.18.43.132]:40774 "EHLO sca-es-mail-1.sun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753593AbYLVW6O (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:58:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:57:57 -0700 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync_fs In-reply-to: <494FE73E.5000802@redhat.com> To: Ric Wheeler Cc: Eric Sandeen , Jan Kara , Arthur Jones , Andrew Morton , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "sct@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Message-id: <20081222225757.GV5000@webber.adilger.int> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 References: <4908C951.2000309@redhat.com> <20081103184426.GA31894@ajones-laptop.nbttech.com> <20081103113318.35b0c266.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081103201428.GB30565@ajones-laptop.nbttech.com> <20081218231707.GB20092@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <494ADEB3.8010109@redhat.com> <20081219002752.GE8424@duck.suse.cz> <494AFA16.2010004@redhat.com> <494FE73E.5000802@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1192 Lines: 30 On Dec 22, 2008 14:15 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > Without having dived into the patch in detail, one worry I would have is > that we still might care to spin up a drive for empty transactions in > order to invalidate the drive's write cache. > > For example, if we have the following sequence: > > (1) user app performs series of writes to file A > (2) pages dirtied from writes to A are destaged to the disk over time > (3) user app issues fsync(file A) to make sure that the data will > survive a power outage > > At this point in time, would this change prevent us from spinning up the > drive and invalidating the disk write cache for that fsync() ? Well, if the writes themselves didn't spin up the drive, it is uncertain whether the write of the journal commit block would be any more helpful in getting that to happen. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- 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/