> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 6:23 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:51 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 12:29, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > But maybe we can ignore crash safety of metacopy on ubifs, because > > > > 1. the ubifs users may not be using this feature 2. ubifs may be > > > > nice and takes care of ordering O_TMPFILE > > > > metadata updates before exposing the link > > > > > > > > Then we can do the following: > > > > IF (metacopy_enabled) > > > > fsync only in ovl_copy_up_file() ELSE > > > > fsync only in ovl_copy_up_metadata() > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > Sounds like a good compromise. > > > > > > > Fei, > > > > Could you please test the attached patch and confirm that your use > > case does not depend on metacopy enabled? > > > > In any case, I am holding on to your patch in case someone reports a > > performance regression with this unconditional fsync approach. > > > > Well, it's a good thing that I took Miklois' advice to make the fsync option implicit, because > the original patch had 2 bugs detected by fstest: > 1. missing O_LARGEFILE > 2. trying to fsync special files > > Please see uptodate patch at: > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/ovl-fsync/ > > If there are no complaints, I will queue this up for v6.12. > Fei, please provide your Tested-by. We do not enable metacopy. Tested this patch and it also solved our issue. Thanks, Fei
