[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/7] block: Add block_flush_device()
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Monday 30 March 2009, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
>> This patch adds a helper function that should be used by filesystems that need
>> to flush the underlying block device on fsync()/fdatasync().
>> Signed-off-by: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <>
>> ---
>> diff -urNp linux-2.6.29-orig/fs/buffer.c linux-2.6.29/fs/buffer.c
>> --- linux-2.6.29-orig/fs/buffer.c 2009-03-24 08:12:14.000000000 +0900
>> +++ linux-2.6.29/fs/buffer.c 2009-03-30 15:27:04.000000000 +0900
>> @@ -165,6 +165,17 @@ void end_buffer_write_sync(struct buffer
>> put_bh(bh);
>> }
>> +/* Issue flush of write caches on the block device */
>> +int block_flush_device(struct block_device *bdev)
> I don't consider this an improvement over using blkdev_issue_flush().

The reason I used a wrapper is that I did not like the semantics provided
by blkdev_issue_flush(). On the one hand, I did not want to pass -EOPNOTSUPP
to filesystems (it is not an error filesystems should care about). On the
other hand it is weird that some filesystems use blkdev_issue_flush() when
they want emit a barrier. blkdev_issue_flush() happens to be implemented
as an empty (block layer) barrier, but I think that is an implementation
detail filesystems should not neet to know about. Indeed I am working on a
patch that implements blkdev_issue_empty_barrier(), so that we can optimize
fsync() flushes and filesystem-originated barriers independently in the block

Judging from your comments below, it seems we are in the same page regarding
this issue.

Again, thank you for you feedback!

- Fernando

>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + ret = blkdev_issue_flush(bdev, NULL);
> The problem lies in using NULL for error_sector argument which shows
> a subtle deficiency of the current implementation/usage of barriers
> based on a write cache flushing.
> I intend to document the issue with adding the FIXME to the current
> users of blkdev_issue_flush() so the problem is at least known and not
> forgotten (fixing it would require some work from both block and fs
> sides and unfortunately there wasn't even a willingness to discuss
> possible solutions few years back when the original code was added).
> Thanks,
> Bart

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: 2009-03-31 08:13    [W:0.436 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site