[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: synchronous mounts
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> As it stands, it seems like redefining 'sync' to sync less data than is
> currently done is not only changing current behavior, but providing less
> to users overall.

Persuasively argued. You appear to have your wish, as this
patch was merged in -pre5.

A `dirsync' option does make sense though, for the reasons which
Stephen outlined.

The whole handling of synchronous operations needs a rip-up-and-rewrite
anyway. We're currently holding onto a stack of locks while waiting
for the disk to spin round and round. It's a great scalability bottleneck
for multiple threads doing things in the same directory. This is
something I shall look at when the kernel versions turn odd.

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: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.081 / U:6.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site