On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 04:39:04PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:14:55PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I still think adding code to every filesystem to optimize for a rather > > stupid use case is not a good idea. I dropped out a bit from the > > thread in the middle, but what was the real use case for lots of > > concurrent fsyncs on the same inode again? > > The use case I'm looking at is concurrent fsyncs on /different/ inodes, > actually. We have _n_ different processes, each writing (and fsyncing) its own > separate file on the same filesystem. > > iirc, ext4_sync_file is called with the inode mutex held, which prevents > concurrent fsyncs on the same inode. Indeed. Although we could drop it at least for the cache flush call. We already do this for block devices. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
