Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755142AbZC3OZw (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751386AbZC3OZm (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:42 -0400 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:56089 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751181AbZC3OZl (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:18 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Fernando Luis =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao Cc: Chris Mason , Eric Sandeen , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix blkdev_issue_flush() failure handling Message-ID: <20090330142518.GI13356@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Fernando Luis =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao , Chris Mason , Eric Sandeen , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200903291928.14451.bzolnier@gmail.com> <49CFB33A.9020406@redhat.com> <20090330022521.GB13356@mit.edu> <49D03AE1.8070009@redhat.com> <1238413667.30488.2.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <49D0C29C.1060307@uvigo.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <49D0C29C.1060307@uvigo.es> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1012 Lines: 22 On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:01:16PM +0900, Fernando Luis V?zquez Cao wrote: > > Chris, I have just sent patches that attempt to fix both ext3 and > ext4 while also adding a per-device sysfs knob tu disable > write-flushes. A previous version of this patch set added a new > generic mount option but comments from Christoph and others > convinced me to turn it into a per-device tunable. Could you take > a look at the patches? Fernando, see my comments on those patches. We don't need to issue a barrier after a call to sync_inode() or ext[34]_force_commit(), since those functions will issue a barrier for us. It would probably be a good idea to use blktrace to test and make sure that we have one and exactly one barrier op issued for each fsync(). - Ted -- 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/