[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] sys_sync livelock fix
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Whats wrong with sync not terminating when there is permenantly I/O left ?
> > > > Its seems preferably to suprise data loss
> > >
> > > Hard call. What do we *want* sync to do?
> >
> > I'd rather not change the 2.4 behaviour - just in case. For 2.5 I really
> > have no opinion either way if SuS doesn't mind
> Alan, I think you have this one wrong, although SuS seems to have it wrong
> as well, and if Linux did what SuS said there would be no problem.
> - What SuS seems to say is that all dirty buffers will queued for physical
> write. I think if we did that the livelock would disappear, but data
> integrity might suffer.
> - sync() could be followed by write() at the very next dispatch, and it
> was never intended to be the last call after which no writes would be
> done. It is a point in time.
> - the most common use of sync() is to flush data write to all files of the
> current process. If there was a better way to do it which was portable,
> sync() would be called less. I doubt there are processes which alluse
> that no write will be done after sync() returns.
> - since sync() can't promise "no new writes" why try to make it do so? It
> should mean "write current sirty buffers" and that's far more than SuS
> requires.
> I don't think benchmarks are generally important, but in this case the
> benchmark reveals that we have been implementing a system call in a way
> which not only does more than SuS requires, but more than the user
> expects. To leave it trying to do even more than that seems to have no
> benefit and a high (possible) cost.

Yow, your message inspired me to re-read SuSv2 and indeed confirm,
sync(2) schedules I/O but can return before completion, while
fsync(2) schedules I/O and waits for completion.

So we need to implement system call checkpoint(2) ? schedule I/O,
introduce an I/O barrier, then sleep until that I/O barrier and all I/O
scheduled before it occurs.


Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal
Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel."
MandrakeSoft | -
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 13:24    [W:0.121 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site