On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 17:54 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:23:26PM +0900, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote: > > You mentioned "we should integrate this with the barrier settings". Do > > you imply we should make it a per-device tunable too? Should we keep the > > barrier-related mount options some filesystems provide? > > > > Making barriers to be a per-device tunable makes sense. The only > reason why we kept it as a mount option in ext4 is for benchmarking > purposes, and in ext3, because the filesystem predated the barrier > code, and there was a desire to be able to benchmark with and without > the old behavior --- and because akpm is still worried about the > performance hit of the barrier code, so he's been resistant about > change the default for ext3. Ok, I'll turn both barriers and flushonfsync into a sysfs-exported per-device knob and see how it turns out. By the way, should we also add/keep a mount option for "benchmarking purposes"?. I guess that once we get the per-device tunable we probable do not need it anymore. Regards, Fernando -- 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
