> -----Original Message----- > From: xfs-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xfs-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Dave Chinner > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:14 AM > To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: aelder@xxxxxxx > Subject: [PATCH 1/6] xfs: preallocation transactions do not need to be > synchronous > diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c index > ae59865..baa2cb3 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c > @@ -896,6 +896,7 @@ xfs_file_fallocate( > xfs_flock64_t bf; > xfs_inode_t *ip = XFS_I(inode); > int cmd = XFS_IOC_RESVSP; > + int attr_flags = XFS_ATTR_NOLOCK; > > if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | > FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | > @@ -922,6 +923,9 @@ xfs_file_fallocate( > goto out_unlock; > } > > + if (file->f_flags & O_DSYNC) > + attr_flags |= XFS_ATTR_SYNC; > + > error = -xfs_change_file_space(ip, cmd, &bf, 0, XFS_ATTR_NOLOCK); > if (error) > goto out_unlock; Where are you passing attr_flags? I was looking at this because I noticed a nice performance improvement in some Samba tests with the xfs_trans_set_sync() call removed, but I have a follow up question... I'd like to back port this patch to 2.6.34. The majority of this patch applies (manually), but the segment above is problematic in that I have an xfs_vn_fallocate() inode operations handler (xfs_iops.c) without the file pointer rather than the above file operations handler. Without really knowing any of this code, I assume I can IS_SYNC() the inode to check for the sync mount situation? Assuming that is correct, is there a straightforward way to cover the open(..., O_SYNC) situation? I suppose I'm open to hacking the VFS to one off this call if I have to, but would rather avoid the ugliness. Any comments are appreciated, thanks. Brian _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
