On Thu 26-08-10 10:25:47, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 08/25/2010 10:02 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 25-08-10 17:57:41, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> On 08/25/2010 06:00 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:58:42PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:47:43PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>>>> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>>> ext4 already uses synchronous discards, no need to add I/O barriers. > >>>> > >>>> This needs the patch that Jan sent in reply to my initial version merged > >>>> into it. > >>> > >>> Actually the jbd2 patch needs it merged, but the point still stands. > >> > >> Yeah, wasn't sure about that one. Has anyone tested it? I'll be > >> happy to merge it but I have no idea whether it's correct or not and > >> Jan didn't seem to have tested it so... Jan, shall I merge the patch? > > I'm quite confident the patch is correct so you can merge it I think but > > tomorrow I'll give it some crash testing together with the rest of your > > patch set in KVM to be sure. > > Patch included in the series before jbd2 conversion patch. An update: I've set up an ext4 barrier testing in KVM - run fsstress, kill KVM at some random moment and check that the filesystem is consistent (kvm is run in cache=writeback mode to simulate disk cache). About 70 runs without journal_async_commit passed fine, now I'm running some tests with the option enabled and the first few rounds passed OK as well. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
