Re: O_DIRECT on tmpfs (again)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I've not been entirely convinced that tmpfs needs direct_IO either;
> but your links from back then show a number of people who feel that
> direct_IO had become mainstream enough to deserve the appearance of
> support by tmpfs.

One other thing that occurs to me is that, if we fake O_DIRECT, then
io_submit will block until the I/O is complete.  It shouldn't block for
long, sure, but it will still block.  I can't say I'm happy about that,
given that many applications mix aio+dio, and will now run into some odd
behaviour when run against tmpfs.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux