Nick Piggin wrote: > Just wondering if we should add an fsync_range syscall like AIX and > some BSDs have? It's pretty simple for the pagecache since it > already implements the full sync with range syncs anyway. For > filesystems and user programs, I imagine it is a bit easier to > convert to fsync_range from fsync rather than use the sync_file_range > syscall. > > Having a flags argument is nice, but AIX seems to use O_SYNC as a > flag, I wonder if we should follow? I like the idea. It's much easier to understand than sync_file_range, whose man page doesn't really explain how to use it correctly. But how is fsync_range different from the sync_file_range syscall with all its flags set? For database writes, you typically write a bunch of stuff in various regions of a big file (or multiple files), then ideally fdatasync some/all of the written ranges - with writes committed to disk in the best order determined by the OS and I/O scheduler. For this, taking a vector of multiple ranges would be nice. Alternatively, issuing parallel fsync_range calls from multiple threads would approximate the same thing - if (big if) they aren't serialised by the kernel. -- 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
