From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync_fs Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:27:37 -0500 Message-ID: <170fa0d20901291027g601c8674o9ec5daf67d4ad0de@mail.gmail.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> <496D1233.2060905@redhat.com> <20090114042402.GH14730@mit.edu> <20090114172750.GJ19950@duck.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Arthur Jones , Andrew Morton , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "sct@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: Theodore Tso , Jan Kara , Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.229]:28007 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752171AbZA2S1i (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:27:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090114172750.GJ19950@duck.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > 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. Ted/Jan/Eric, I just wanted to followup on this to see what the plan is. Items 1 and 2 haven't occurred in any of the ext4.git branches that I can see. I could be missing something but it seems this may have slipped through the ext[34] cracks? Mike