[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: vfs: Add MS_FLUSHONFSYNC mount flag
Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 15:30 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Thu 12-02-09 11:13:37, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Also that way if you have 8 partitions on a battery-backed blockdev, you
>>>> can tune it once, instead of needing to mount all 8 filesystems with the
>>>> new option.
>>> Yes, but OTOH we should give sysadmin a possibility to enable / disable
>>> it on just some partitions. I don't see a reasonable use for that but people
>>> tend to do strange things ;) and here isn't probably a strong reason to not
>>> allow them.
>>> Honza
>> But nobody has asked for that, have they? So why offer it up a this point?
>> They could use LD_PRELOAD to make fsync a no-op if they really don't
>> care for it, I guess... though that's not easily per-fs either.
>> But do we really want to go out of our way to enable people to
>> short-circuit data integrity paths and then file bugs when their files
>> go missing? :)
> Well, it is just a matter of using safe defaults. IMHO, a scenario where
> the administrator wants to optimize writes to a certain partition and
> _explicitly_ clears MS_FLUSHONFSYNC on that superblock is not completely
> unreasonable.

One case is "this device is safe with a write cache and flush is not
necessary for data consistency" - that's the per-bdev setting.

The other case is "I don't really care and I just want to go faster" -
that's the per-mount setting.

I'd be much more likely to support the first case, as it's needed for
maximum performance w/o sacrificing correctness, when properly used.

The latter case is really only for cutting corners and giving people
more rope than they need to hang themselves.

>> (I guess the blockdev tunable is similarly dangerous, but it more
>> clearly meets the explicit need (writecache-safe devices))
> If distributions use sane defaults and we document the mount option or
> bdev tunable properly I guess it might make sense to allow system
> administrators to shoot themselves in the foot.
> (By the way, in this patch-set a patch for mount(8) is included.)

... one of the advantages of making it a bdev tunable is that you don't
have to mess with mount(8) :)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-13 07:11    [W:0.182 / U:8.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site