> 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. That sounds like a job for fadvise(). A new FADV_WILLSYNC says you're planning to sync that data soon. The kernel responds by scheduling the I/O immediately. fsync_range() takes a single range and in this case is just a wait. I think it would be easier for the user as well as more flexible for the kernel than a multi-range fsync_range() or multiple threads. -- Bryan Henderson IBM Almaden Research Center San Jose CA Storage Systems -- 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
