Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > filemap_fdatawait, filemap_fdatasync, and fsync_inode_buffers all restrict > their scans to a list of dirty buffers for that specific file. Only > file_fsync goes through all the dirty buffers on the device, and the ext2 > fsync path never calls file_fsync. > > Or am I missing something? If the filesystems tested had blocksize < PAGE_SIZE the fsync would try to sync everything, not walk the dirty buffers directly. So e.g. if one of the file systems tested was generated with old ext2 utils that do not use 4K block size then some performance difference could be explained. -Andi - 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/
- scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Steve Lord
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Chris Mason
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Steve Lord
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Chris Mason
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync... Steve Lord
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync... Andi Kleen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Andre Hedrick
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Dan Hollis
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync... Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync... Andre Hedrick
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Jonathan Morton