Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756575AbZAFXYc (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755491AbZAFXYU (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:20 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:60273 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755417AbZAFXYT (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:18 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin Subject: Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans Message-ID: <20090106232418.GB25103@infradead.org> References: <20090105004300.19ed52d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090106225744.GA10553@infradead.org> <20090106151131.b6c4ff0b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090106151131.b6c4ff0b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1479 Lines: 30 On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:11:31PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I'm not sure this is a good idea. Concurrent syncs are a bad idea > > to start with and we should just synchronyze do_sync completely. > > sync_filesystems as one of the main components of do_sync already > > is synchronized in that way, and taking that to a higher level would > > get rid of all the worries about concurrent syncs. > > Yes, single-threading sys_sync() would fix the problem which that patch > addresses. > > However there are a lot of performance and correctness issues around > sys_sync()-versus-fsync(), etc for which such a simple fix won't be > acceptable. fsync should really not much interac with sync at that level. While they both end up at same primitives at the lowest level those aren't the ones we're trying to protect against. I'm currently in the process of a major rework of sys_sync/do_sync to make it work properly for modern filesystems and the global synchronization was one of the first things I did.. So if you have any workloads where that causes a problem please send them my way. Not that I can really thing of them, given the global nature of sys_sync I can't see any benefit of doing multiple of these in parallel. -- 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/