On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? seems reasonable -- Thanks, Steve -- 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
