On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:11:37PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:58:55 -0500 > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > We need to see the performance impact. As you say cifs_writepages is > > synchronous so we should be ok without it. Any test results > > before/after? > > > > No, I haven't tested this for performance. It is a correctness issue > though. We absolutely can't put the last reference to the last open > filehandle without flushing all of the data first. > > My expectation here though is that this may help performance in some > cases since this patch also has it skip the flush on files open > read-only. ->flush is called on every close call, ->release on the last close for a given file pointer. Maybe you want a filemap_flush in ->flush and filemap_write_and_wait in ->release? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
