On February 14, 2002 01:37 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > On February 13, 2002 11:24 pm, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > > ...
> > > It doesn't matter, if you write the existing dirty buffers the filesystem
> > > type is irrelevant.
> >
> > Incorrect. The modern crop of filesystems has the concept of consistency
> > points, and data written after a consistency point is irrelevant except to the
> > next consistency point. IOW, it's often ok to leave some buffers dirty on a
> > sync. But for a dumb filesystem you just have to guess at what's needed for
> > a consistency point, and the best guess is 'whatever's dirty at the time of
> > sync'.
> >
> > For metadata-only journalling the issues get more subtle and we need a ruling
> > from the ext3 guys.
>
> The current implementation of fsync_dev is about as good as
> it'll get for journal=writeback mode - write the data,
> run a commit, write the data again then wait on it all.
What's the theory behind writing the data both before and after the commit?
> >
> > Sorry, I don't see the connection to sync.
>
> I don't understand the whole thread :)
Dangerous advocacy of the broken SuS semantics for sync, has to be stamped
out before it spreads ;-)
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:59 EST