Re: [PATCH] Write the inode itself in block_fsync()

Sam Vilain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> 
>  >Hi,
>  >
>  >For block device's inode, we don't write a inode's meta data
>  >itself. But, I think we should write inode's meta data for fsync().
>  >  
>  >
> 
>  Ouch... won't that halve performance of database transaction logs?

Yes, it could well cause a lot more seeking to do atime and/or mtime
writes.   Which aren't terribly important, really.

Unless I'm missing something, I suspect we'd be better off without this,
even though it's a correctness fix :(
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Write the inode itself in block_fsync()
    • From: Bart Samwel <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Write the inode itself in block_fsync()
    • From: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Write the inode itself in block_fsync()
    • From: Sam Vilain <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 02/03] Unmapped: Modify LRU behaviour
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4)
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Write the inode itself in block_fsync()
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Write the inode itself in block_fsync()
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]