On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:45:02 +0200 (CEST), Andrea Arcangeli
<andrea@suse.de> said:
> I think the major issue with fsync is having to read from disk in order to
> complete the operation. The fact that we don't have to lookup the buffer
> cache anymore to check if there's a dirty buffer in memory will sure cut
> down the complexity of the operation, but according to me the real issue
> is to avoid read-I/O from disk (think if you have only one block dirty in
> the metadata (after an append of data to an inode), in such case you don't
> want to generate lots of read-I/O just to write 1k to disk).
> fdatasync instead is just _fine_ in this regard.
No it isn't. fdatasync has exactly the same requirements here as
fsync. The only things which fdatasync is allowed to skip are the
inode timestamps; all other inode and metadata modifications must
still be synced.
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/