On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 2:31 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:16:57PM +0900, Huijin Park wrote: > > In general, fsync has a larger overhead than fdatasync. And since the > > dio option is for data, it seems like fdatasync is enough. > > So this patch changes it to fdatasync which has little load relatively. > > The only difference is that fsync also syncs the timestamps. So this > change looks correct, but also a bit useless given that buffered to > direct I/O or back changes aren't exactly a fast path. Although the difference will be minimal, why I suggested it is because it can reduce unnecessary metadata i/o (helpful on slow i/o devices), and using fdatasync looked correct like your opinion. In some environment cases, loop setup for mount is required when application is initialized and this change will help.
