From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync_fs Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:21:31 -0600 Message-ID: <496CCD9B.7070308@redhat.com> 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> <494ADEB3.8010109@redhat.com> <20090112222834.GA25494@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Arthur Jones , Andrew Morton , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "sct@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:35826 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753796AbZAMRVs (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:21:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090112222834.GA25494@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Kara wrote: > Hi Eric, > >> Jan Kara wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm sorry I'm replying late but I got time to react to this only now... >>> >>>> I tried this and it too fixes the problem. FWIW I agree it >>>> looks better... >>> Well, shouldn't we rather fix what journal_start_commit() returns? >>> The interface which returns 1 when a transaction is already committing or >>> a transaction commit has just been started but 0 when we race with >>> somebody staring the commit is fairly unusable. Moreover >>> ext3_force_commit() will unnecessarily create new sync transaction and >>> commit it if there's no transaction running which is quite expensive >>> (even merging empty sync handle is not for free because of sync >>> transaction batching). But this is minor problem since we probably >>> don't care too much about sync() performance - BTW this is probably a >>> cause for bug 12224, isn't it? >> Yep, it is! :) >> >>> BTW: ocfs2 would need fixing as well if done your way since it's >>> sync_fs function has been copied over from ext3. >>> To summarized I'd rather see a patch like below (untested) going in >>> and your patch reverted... Opinions? I can cookup a JBD2 version of >>> the patch in case we agree to go this way. >> Thanks, I'll look that over. > Any chance you've looked over that patch? Thanks. > > Honza Sorry, kind of slipped through the cracks. I'll do that and run it through the testcase today. -Eric