Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:03:03 -0400 | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.29 | From | Kyle Moffett <> |
| |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote: > Then you have just reinvented the transactional userspace API that people > often want to replace POSIX API with. Maybe one day they will succeed. > > But "POSIX API replacement" is an area never short of proposals... :)
Well, I think the goal is not to *replace* the POSIX API or even provide "transactional" guarantees. The performance penalty for atomic transactions is pretty high, and most programs (like GIT) don't really give a damn, as they provide that on a higher level.
It's like the difference between a modern SMP system that supports memory barriers and write snooping and one of the theoretical "transactional memory" designs that have never caught on.
To be honest I think we could provide much better data consistency guarantees and remove a lot of fsync() calls with just a basic per-filesystem barrier() call.
Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- 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/
| |