Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:13:29 -0500 | From | Ric Wheeler <> | Subject | Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync() |
| |
Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jamie Lokier wrote: >> By durable, I mean that fsync() should actually commit writes to >> physical stable storage, > > Yes, it should. > > >> I was surprised that fsync() doesn't do this already. There was a lot >> of effort put into block I/O write barriers during 2.5, so that >> journalling filesystems can force correct write ordering, using disk >> flush cache commands. >> >> After all that effort, I was very surprised to notice that Linux 2.6.x >> doesn't use that capability to ensure fsync() flushes the disk cache >> onto stable storage. > > It's surprising you are surprised, given that this [lame] fsync behavior > has remaining consistently lame throughout Linux's history.
Maybe I am confused, but isn't this is what fsync() does today whenever barriers are enabled (the fsync() invalidates the drive's write cache).
ric
| |