Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: True fsync() in Linux (on IDE) | From | Chris Mason <> | Date | Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:52:27 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 03:05, Hans Reiser wrote: > Chris Mason wrote: > > >On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 16:09, Peter Zaitsev wrote: > > > > > >>On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 13:02, Chris Mason wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>>In the former case cache is surely not flushed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Hmmm, is it reiser? For both 2.4 reiserfs and ext3, the flush happens > >>>when you commit. ext3 always commits on fsync and reiser only commits > >>>when you've changed metadata. > >>> > >>> > >>Oh. Yes. This is Reiser, I did not think it is FS issue. > >>I'll know to stay away from ReiserFS now. > >> > >> > > > >For reiserfs data=ordered should be enough to trigger the needed > >commits. If not, data=journal. Note that neither fs does barriers for > >O_SYNC, so we're just not perfect in 2.4. > > > >-chris > > > You are not listening to Peter. As I understand it from what Peter says > and your words, your implementation is wrong, and makes fsync > meaningless. If so, then you need to fix it. fsync should not be > meaningless even for metadata only journaling. This is a serious bug > that needs immediate correction, if Peter and I understand it correctly > from your words.
I am listening to Peter, Jens and I have spent a significant amount of time on this code. We can go back and spend many more hours testing and debugging the 2.4 changes, or we can go forward with a very nice solution in 2.6.
I'm planning on going forward with 2.6
-chris
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |