Jens Axboe wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Mar 25 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Stating "fsync already does that" borders on false, because that assumes
>> (a) the user has a fs that supports barriers
>> (b) the user is actually aware of a 'barriers' mount option and what it  
>> means
>> (c) the user has turned on an option normally defaulted to off.
>>
>> Or in other words, it pretty much never happens.
> 
> That is true, except if you use xfs/ext4. And this discussion is fine,
> as was the one a few months back that got ext4 to enable barriers by
> default. If I had submitted patches to do that back in 2001/2 when the
> barrier stuff was written, I would have been shot for introducing such a
> slow down. After people found out that it just wasn't something silly,
> then you have a way to enable it.
> 
> I'd still wager that most people would rather have a 'good enough
> fsync' on their desktops than incur the penalty of barriers or write
> through caching. I know I do.

That's a strawman argument:  The choice is not between "good enough 
fsync" and full use of barriers / write-through caching, at all.

It is clearly possible to implement an fsync(2) that causes FLUSH CACHE 
to be issued, without adding full barrier support to a filesystem.  It 
is likely doable to avoid touching per-filesystem code at all, if we 
issue the flush from a generic fsync(2) code path in the kernel.

Thus, you have a "third way":  fsync(2) gives the guarantee it is 
supposed to, but you do not take the full performance hit of 
barriers-all-the-time.

Remember, fsync(2) means that the user _expects_ a performance hit.

And they took the extra step to call fsync(2) because they want a 
guarantee, not a lie.

	Jeff



--
unsubscribe notice
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/