Abhijit Paithankar wrote: > > > One way to do it is to fsync every few operations. However, fsync is > > > blocking and affects performance. > > > > > > The other (more efficient) way is to have the filesystem notify the > > > application when a transaction/change is written to disk. > > > > Is this more efficient than aio_fsync, and if so, why? > > > > For file writes, aio_fsync seems like a cleaner interface, and if > > that's not fast enough, it could be made faster - perhaps using code > > form this patch. (An aio_fsync_ranges would be even better). > > aio_fsync does not provide any relationship between the metadata > operations and journal commit. There is no mechanism to track > operations which made it to the journal and the ones that did not. Oh, do you mean that aio_fsync tells you all operations have reached the journal up to the time of aio_fsync, but your notifications say _which_ operations reach it one at a time, so you can wait on specific ones without waiting for them all? If the latter, I agree that what you're doing is good :-) -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
