On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 01:54:39PM -0600, John Garry wrote: > On 27/02/2024 23:12, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > Last year, I talked about an interest to provide database such as > > MySQL with the ability to issue writes that would not be torn as they > > write 16k database pages[1]. > > > > [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lwn.net/Articles/932900/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Ij_ZeSZrJ4uPL94Im73udLMjqpkcZwHmuNnznogL68ehu6TDTXqbMsC4xLUqh18hq2Ib77p1D8_4mV5Q$ > > > > After discussing this topic earlier this week, I would like to know if there > are still objections or concerns with the untorn-writes userspace API > proposed in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20240326133813.3224593-1-john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I feel that the series for supporting direct-IO only, above, is stuck > because of this topic of buffered IO. Just my 2 cents, but I think supporting untorn I/O for buffered I/O is an amazingly bad idea that opens up a whole can of worms in terms of potential failure paths while not actually having a convincing use case. For buffered I/O something like the atomic msync proposal makes a lot more sense, because it actually provides a useful API for non-trivial transactions.
