On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > So, I also hate this (note that this is already in place today for fs > dax). You have an operation to make things persistent, and another one > to *really* make things persistent. It makes no sense to me. I have no > idea how to communicate that to application developers. When do you > force things out to the smallest failure domain? > > The arguments I've heard are that ADR failures may happen due to a > variety of factors, and that an application (or file system) can make > sure that critical (meta)data is available after a crash by flushing to > the smallest failure domain. Presumably, this would be a > lower-frequency event (only for metadata changes, etc).
Which meansit should not abuse fsync but have a special interface just for that IFF we trust ADR. IFF we don't trust it anyway fsync absolutely is the right interface, but then we shouldn't offer MAP_SYNC. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
