Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755794AbZAJKMS (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:12:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753629AbZAJKMJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:12:09 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:36218 "EHLO gprs189-60.eurotel.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753548AbZAJKMH (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:12:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:22:49 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin , jack@suse.cz Subject: Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans Message-ID: <20090108132248.GD2247@ucw.cz> References: <20090105004300.19ed52d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090106225744.GA10553@infradead.org> <20090106151131.b6c4ff0b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090106232418.GB25103@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090106232418.GB25103@infradead.org> 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: 1896 Lines: 42 Hi! > > > 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. I did play with fsync() a bit, and realized it mostly does not work. (Yes, I did physically unplug the media). I have some scripts, and am currently converting them to nbd so that I will not have to physically pull anything. Jack has some ext2 fix provoked by those tests... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/