![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Oct 14 2003, Greg Stark wrote: > > Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Forward ported and tested today (with the dummy ext3 patch included), > > works for me. Some todo's left, but I thought I'd send it out to gauge > > interest. TODO: > > > Is there a user-space interface planned for this? I don't have one planned. > One possibility may be just to hang it off fsync(2) so fsync doesn't > return until until all the buffers it flushed are actually synced to > disk. That's its documented semantics anyways. Makes sense, indeed. > There's also the case of files opened with O_SYNC. Would inserting a > write barrier after every write to such a file destroy performance? If it's mainly sequential io, then no it won't destroy performance. It will be lower than without the cache flush of course. -- Jens Axboe - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||