Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765430AbZANR22 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:28:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764339AbZANR1x (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:27:53 -0500 Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:45739 "EHLO mail.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755892AbZANR1w (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:27:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:27:50 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Theodore Tso , Eric Sandeen , Jan Kara , Arthur Jones , Andrew Morton , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "sct@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync_fs Message-ID: <20090114172750.GJ19950@duck.suse.cz> 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> <496D1233.2060905@redhat.com> <20090114042402.GH14730@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090114042402.GH14730@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1299 Lines: 33 On Tue 13-01-09 23:24:02, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 04:14:11PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > This looks sane to me, and it does fix the below testcase. > > > > Care to formally propose it? > > Can we confirm what is being proposed? From following this thread, I > think what folks are suggesting is: > > 1) Revert the current "ext3/4: wait on all pending ocmmits in ext3/4_sync_fs" Yes. > 2) Apply Jan's patch "jbd[2]: Fix return value of journal_start_commit()" Yes. > 3) Also apply Jan's patch "jbd2: Skip commit of a transaction without > any buffers" since it appears to be a good optimization (although it's > not clear it would happen once we revert (1), above. Yes, it's an optimization but I'm still a bit afraid about something relying on jbd2_journal_force_commit() implying a barrier which would not always be a case after this patch... So we should probably audit all users of ext4_force_commit() and check that this change is fine with them. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- 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/