Jens et. al.,
If I dd to an SD card (e.g. via a USB SD card reader), is it required to
run sync afterward in order to guarantee that all written data is
written to the SD card? I'm running dd with a simple command-line like
"dd if=file.img of=/dev/sdc".
In practice on my system, strace shows me that dd completes its write
operations relatively quickly, since many are buffered in the kernel.
However, dd's call to close() takes a very long time. I believe this
delay is due to the kernel flushing all the buffers to disk, and so a
sync is not required. I found code in the kernel that does appear to do
this:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.5/source/fs/block_dev.c#L2145
dev_blk_fops.release = blkdev_close
blkdev_close calls blkdev_put
blkdev_put calls __blkdev_put
__blkdev_put calls sync_blockdev if the device open count is 0
sync_blockdev calls __sync_blockdev with the wait flag set
__sync_blockdev calls filemap_write_and_wait
However, Simon finds that when he dd's to an SD card, he needs to
execute sync afterward to avoid a corrupted SD card. I'm trying to
understand what the difference is, and whether sync is the correct
solution for this issue, or just something that happens to take some
time (e.g. to flush buffers to the sytem's main hard disk) during which
some other issue is typically resolved.
For reference, I've seen the "no sync required" behaviour on my laptop
with a built-in PCIe SD reader which shows up as /dev/mmcblkN and on my
desktop using a USB SD reader which shows up as /dev/sdN. Simon is I
believe using a USB SD card reader, which is actually a mux device that
allows switching the SD card between hosts, with the host->host switch
happening immediately after the dd (or dd+sync) completes.
