lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()
On Tue, 26 February 2008 15:28:10 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > One interesting aspect of this comes with COW filesystems like btrfs or
> > logfs. Writing out data pages is not sufficient, because those will get
> > lost unless their referencing metadata is written as well. So either we
> > have to call fsync for those filesystems or add another callback and let
> > filesystems override the default implementation.
>
> Doesn't the ->fsync callback get called in the sys_fdatasync() case,
> with appropriate arguments?

My paragraph above was aimed at the sync_file_range() case. fsync and
fdatasync do the right thing within the limitations you brought up in
this thread. sync_file_range() without further changes will only write
data pages, not the metadata required to actually access those data
pages. This works just fine for non-COW filesystems, which covers all
currently merged ones.

With COW filesystems it is currently impossible to do sync_file_range()
properly. The problem is orthogonal to your's, I just brought it up
since you were already mentioning sync_file_range().


Jörn

--
Joern's library part 10:
http://blogs.msdn.com/David_Gristwood/archive/2004/06/24/164849.aspx
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-26 18:05    [W:2.885 / U:1.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site