Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->sync_inode

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 03:47:34PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> No, you misunderstand 1. I am saying they should be treated as
> WB_SYNC_NONE.
> 
> In fact 2 would cause much more IO, because dirty writeout would
> never clean them so it will just keep writing them out. I don't
> know how 2 could be feasible.

WB_SYNC_NONE means ->write_inode behaves non-blocking.  That is
we do not block on memory allocations, and we do not take locks
blocking.  Most journaling filesystems currently take the easy
way out an make it a no-op due to that, but take a look at XFS
how complicated it is to avoid the blocking if you want a non-noop
implementation.

> So, back to my original question: what is the performance problem
> with treating write_inode as WB_SYNC_NONE, and then having .fsync
> and .sync_fs do the integrity?

See above - we'll block in the flusher thread and cause it to stall,
which is really nasty as it does all data I/O writeback.  The salling
may also block sync() although I don't think it's as important there.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/