Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760725Ab0HEUpI (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:45:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20733 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758865Ab0HEUpC (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:45:02 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer To: "Ted Ts'o" Cc: Avi Kivity , Christoph Hellwig , Ric Wheeler , Mingming Cao , djwong@us.ibm.com, linux-ext4 , linux-kernel , Keith Mannthey , Mingming Cao Subject: Re: [RFC] ext4: Don't send extra barrier during fsync if there are no dirty pages. References: <20100429235102.GC15607@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> <1272934667.2544.3.camel@mingming-laptop> <4BE02C45.6010608@redhat.com> <20100504154553.GA22777@infradead.org> <20100630124832.GA1333@thunk.org> <4C5818A1.9070102@redhat.com> <20100804233206.GA2901@thunk.org> <4C5A1FDC.3010700@redhat.com> <20100805161745.GG2901@thunk.org> <20100805203928.GM2901@thunk.org> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:44:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100805203928.GM2901@thunk.org> (Ted Ts'o's message of "Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:39:28 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1119 Lines: 27 "Ted Ts'o" writes: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:13:44PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> > IO_CMD_FSYNC doesn't exist right now, but sure, it means we don't have >> >> Well, there's IOCB_CMD_FSYNC. But still, this isn't the same thing as >> what's requested. If I understand correctly, what is requested is a >> mechanism to flush out all data for multiple file descriptors and follow >> that with a single barrier/flush (and yes, Ted did give a summary of the >> commands that would be required to accomplish that). >> >> There still remains the question of why this should be tied to the AIO >> submission interface. > > I don't think it should, personally. The only excuse might be if > someone wanted to do an asynchronous fsync(), but I don't think that > makes sense in most cases. In case it wasn't clear, we are in agreement on this. Cheers, Jeff -- 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/