Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 4 Jan 2011 19:31:32 +1100 | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->sync_inode |
| |
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 07:03:23PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 01:57:37AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Also giving filesystems the flexibility to do the data writeout can > > > be more optimal by doing all writeout at once or ordering to suit their > > > writeback patterns. Having range data could give some performance > > > advantages writing back mappings or commit operations over network. I > > > don't see it as a big complexity. It gives a chance to do range fsyncs > > > and sync_file_range and such properly too. > > > > We currently do all that just fine before calling into ->fsync. > > What do you mean we do all that just fine? A filesystem can't schedule > data submission and waiting optimally versus metadata, it can't do > metadata operations or remote commits corresponding to data ranges, and > it doesn't support nfs sync operations.
And actually I think it is much better to have sync_inode, which means we'll be able to get rid of commit_metadata (which should be an inode operation anyway, not an export operation which really should deal with exporting filesystems to a non-vfs namespace, not nfsd hacks).
commit_metadata would just be sync_inode with a null range or no data sync flag set.
|  |