Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; sj...@redhat.com
Subject: Re: FileStore should not use syncfs(2)
On 08/05/2015 04:26 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was
only
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was
only traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list of dirty inodes), but that
appears not to
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 02:26:30PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was
only traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list of dirty inodes), but that
appears not to be
05, 2015 2:27 PM
To: Somnath Roy
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; sj...@redhat.com
Subject: FileStore should not use syncfs(2)
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was only
traversing
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 02:26:30PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was
only traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Yan, Zheng wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was
only traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list of
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 06:00:42AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
I'm guessing the strategy here should be to fsync the file (leaf) and then
any affected ancestors, such that the directory fsyncs are effectively
no-ops? Or does it matter?
All metadata transactions log the involve parties (parent
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was
only traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list of dirty inodes), but that
appears not to be the case, even on the latest kernels.
That means that the more
@vger.kernel.org; sj...@redhat.com
Subject: FileStore should not use syncfs(2)
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's inode
list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was only
traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list of dirty inodes), but that appears
On 08/05/2015 04:26 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's
inode list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was
only traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list of dirty inodes), but that
appears not to be the case, even on the
...@redhat.com
Subject: FileStore should not use syncfs(2)
Today I learned that syncfs(2) does an O(n) search of the superblock's inode
list searching for dirty items. I've always assumed that it was only
traversing dirty inodes (e.g., a list of dirty inodes), but that appears
11 matches
Mail list logo
