Hi Jens,
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
fs/block_dev.c between commit b8af67e2681c693a21f3933e3bdfce4cf66596d3
("fs/block_dev.c: fix performance regression in O_DIRECT|O_SYNC writes to
block devices") from Linus' tree and commit
fbd9b09a177a481eda256447c881f014f29034fe ("blkdev: generalize flags for
blkdev_issue_fn functions") from the block tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix for a while.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
diff --cc fs/block_dev.c
index 6dcee88,dd76930..0000000
--- a/fs/block_dev.c
+++ b/fs/block_dev.c
@@@ -406,23 -406,17 +406,24 @@@ static loff_t block_llseek(struct file
int blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, struct dentry *dentry, int datasync)
{
- struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(filp->f_mapping->host);
+ struct inode *bd_inode = filp->f_mapping->host;
+ struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(bd_inode);
int error;
- error = sync_blockdev(bdev);
- if (error)
- return error;
-
+ /*
+ * There is no need to serialise calls to blkdev_issue_flush with
+ * i_mutex and doing so causes performance issues with concurrent
+ * O_SYNC writers to a block device.
+ */
+ mutex_unlock(&bd_inode->i_mutex);
+
- error = blkdev_issue_flush(bdev, NULL);
+ error = blkdev_issue_flush(bdev, GFP_KERNEL, NULL,
+ (BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT));
if (error == -EOPNOTSUPP)
error = 0;
+
+ mutex_lock(&bd_inode->i_mutex);
+
return error;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(blkdev_fsync);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
