lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ext2 + -osync: not as easy as it seems
On Wed, Jan 14 2009, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean; if the barrier operation isn't flushing
> > all of the caches all the way out to the iron oxide, it's not going to
> > be working properly no matter where it is being called, whether it's
> > in ext4_sync_file() or in jbd2's journal_submit_commit_record().
> Well, I thought that a barrier, as an abstraction, only guarantees that
> any IO which happened before the barrier hits the iron before any IO which
> has been submitted after a barrier. This is actually enough for a
> journalling to work correctly but it's not enough for fsync() guarantees.
> But I might be wrong...

It also guarentees that when you get a completion for that barrier
write, it's on safe storage. Think of it as a flush-write-flush
operation, in the presence of write back caching.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-14 15:11    [W:0.088 / U:3.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site