On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:23:30 -0400 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? > Good point. By doing that the right way we should be able to get rid of that nasty wait loop in the cifs release op too. I'll respin and resend... Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
