On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:40:41AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
<nod>
Unfortunately, the patch immediately triggers the BUG at
drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:1064:
/*
* BLOCK_PC requests may transfer data, in which case they must
* a bio attached to them. Or they might contain a SCSI command
* that does not transfer data, in which case they may optionally
* submit a request without an attached bio.
*/
if (req->bio) {
int ret;
BUG_ON(!req->nr_phys_segments);
--D
--
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
