On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:28:58PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:02:33PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:54:03PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > Just wondering why ext4 and XFS behavior are different and which is a > > > more appropriate behavior. ext4 does not seem to be waiting for all > > > pending AIO/DIO to finish while XFS does. > > > > They're both wrong. Ext4 completely misses support in fsync or sync > > to catch pending unwrittent extent conversions, and thus fails to obey > > the data integrity guarante. XFS is beeing rather stupid about the > > amount of synchronization it requires. The untested patch below > > should help with avoiding the synchronization if you're purely doing > > overwrites: > > Yes this patch helps. I have already laid out the file and doing > overwrites. > > I throttled aio-stress in one cgroup to 1 byte/sec and edited another > file from other cgroup and did a "sync" and it completed. Even other test where I am running aio-stress in one window and edited a file in another window and typed "sync" worked. "sync" does not hang waiting for aio-stress to finish. Thanks Vivek -- 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
