search for: o_dsync

Author: swilcox Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: 063e12129ee21a72ae625b3e10b3169e8906fe77 Log message: 6238533 UFS O_DSYNC Logging Performance Files: update: usr/src/uts/common/fs/ufs/ufs_vnops.c

...c b/fs/ocfs2/file.c index 06ccf6a..b2ca980 100644 --- a/fs/ocfs2/file.c +++ b/fs/ocfs2/file.c @@ -2013,8 +2013,8 @@ out_dio: /* buffered aio wouldn't have proper lock coverage today */ BUG_ON(ret == -EIOCBQUEUED && !(file->f_flags & O_DIRECT)); - if ((file->f_flags & O_DSYNC && !direct_io) || IS_SYNC(inode) || - (file->f_flags & O_DIRECT && has_refcount)) { + if (((file->f_flags & O_DSYNC) && !direct_io) || IS_SYNC(inode) || + ((file->f_flags & O_DIRECT) && has_refcount)) { ret = filemap_fdatawrite_range(f...

The slides from my ZFS presentation at OSCON (as well as some additional information) are available at http://www.meangrape.com/ 2007/08/oscon-zfs/ Jay Edwards jay at meangrape.com http://www.meangrape.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070802/f2fa7b08/attachment.html>

I''m working with a Cyrus IMAP server running on a T2000 box under Solaris 10 10/09 with current patches. Mailboxes reside on six ZFS filesystems, each containing about 200 gigabytes of data. These are part of a single zpool built on four Iscsi devices from our Netapp filer. One of these ZFS filesystems contains a number of global and per-user databases in addition to one sixth of the

Hi folks, I would appreciate it if someone can help me understand some weird results I''m seeing with trying to do performance testing with an SSD offloaded ZIL. I''m attempting to improve my infrastructure''s burstable write capacity (ZFS based WebDav servers), and naturally I''m looking at implementing SSD based ZIL devices. I have a test machine with the

Hi, I work on a support team for the Sun StorEdge 6920 and have a question about the use of the SCSI sync cache command in Solaris and ZFS. We have a bug in our 6920 software that exposes us to a memory leak when we receive the SCSI sync cache command: 6456312 - SCSI Synchronize Cache Command is flawed It will take some time for this bug fix to role out to the field so we need to understand

..._ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/drm.h index b0b8556..a11b893 100644 --- a/include/uapi/drm/drm.h +++ b/include/uapi/drm/drm.h @@ -661,13 +661,20 @@ struct drm_set_client_cap { }; #define DRM_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC +#define DRM_SYNC_FD O_DSYNC struct drm_prime_handle { __u32 handle; /** Flags.. only applicable for handle->fd */ __u32 flags; - /** Returned dmabuf file descriptor */ + /** + * DRM_IOCTL_PRIME_FD_TO_HANDLE: + * in: dma-buf fd + * DRM_IOCTL_PRIME_HANDLE_TO_FD: + * in: sync fence fd if DRM_SYNC_FD flag is...

I''m troubleshooting an I/O performance problem with one of our applications that does a lot of writing, generally blocks just over 32K, sequentially writing large files. It''s a Solaris 10 x86 system with UFS disk. We''re often only seeing disk write throughput of around 6-8MB/s, even when there is minimal read activity. Running iosnoop shows that most of the physical

...93 100644 > --- a/fs/direct-io.c > +++ b/fs/direct-io.c > @@ -1274,8 +1274,7 @@ do_blockdev_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode, > */ > if (dio->is_async && iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { > retval = 0; > - if ((iocb->ki_filp->f_flags & O_DSYNC) || > - IS_SYNC(iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping->host)) > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC) > retval = dio_set_defer_completion(dio); > else if (!dio->inode->i_sb->s_dio_done_wq) { > /* > -- > 2.13.6 >

...93 100644 > --- a/fs/direct-io.c > +++ b/fs/direct-io.c > @@ -1274,8 +1274,7 @@ do_blockdev_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode, > */ > if (dio->is_async && iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { > retval = 0; > - if ((iocb->ki_filp->f_flags & O_DSYNC) || > - IS_SYNC(iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping->host)) > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC) > retval = dio_set_defer_completion(dio); > else if (!dio->inode->i_sb->s_dio_done_wq) { > /* > -- > 2.13.6 >

...t; diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/drm.h > index b0b8556..a11b893 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/drm/drm.h > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/drm.h > @@ -661,13 +661,20 @@ struct drm_set_client_cap { > }; > > #define DRM_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC > +#define DRM_SYNC_FD O_DSYNC > struct drm_prime_handle { > __u32 handle; > > /** Flags.. only applicable for handle->fd */ > __u32 flags; > > - /** Returned dmabuf file descriptor */ > + /** > + * DRM_IOCTL_PRIME_FD_TO_HANDLE: > + * in: dma-buf fd > + * DRM_IOCTL_PRIME_HANDLE...

...requests (like MC_INVALIDATE)". It sounds like this means what I''m trying to do isn''t implemented yet - is this correct, or have I found a bug? Presumably it will be implemented in the future? [As a side-note, you''re probably wondering why we don''t just use O_DSYNC when opening the file, and then just write(2) to it. The reason for this is because it''s very slow on UFS for large buffers - effectively linear with the number of pages crossed, or about 6ms per 8KBytes on an otherwise idle SCSI disk on SPARC. The good news is that this is very fast on ZF...

Joseph Little wrote: > I''d love to "vote" to have this addressed, but apparently votes for > bugs are no available to outsiders. > > What''s limiting Stanford EE''s move to using ZFS entirely for our > snapshoting filesystems and multi-tier storage is the inability to > access .zfs directories and snapshots in particular on NFSv3 clients.

Hi all, While fuzzing arm64/v4.16-rc2 with syzkaller, I simultaneously hit a number of splats in the block layer: * inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-R} usage in jbd2_trans_will_send_data_barrier * BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/mempool.c:320 * WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at block/blk.h:297 generic_make_request_checks+0x670/0x750 ... I've included the

Hi all, While fuzzing arm64/v4.16-rc2 with syzkaller, I simultaneously hit a number of splats in the block layer: * inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-R} usage in jbd2_trans_will_send_data_barrier * BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/mempool.c:320 * WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at block/blk.h:297 generic_make_request_checks+0x670/0x750 ... I've included the

Hi All ; One of our customer is suffered from FS being corrupted after an unattanded shutdonw due to power problem. They want to switch to ZFS. >From what I read on, ZFS will most probably not be corrupted from the same event. But I am not sure how will Oracle be affected from a sudden power outage when placed over ZFS ? Any comments ? PS: I am aware of UPS''s and

All, I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). Thanks, Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org

I had to let this go and get on with testing DB2 on Solaris. I had to abandon zfs on local discs in x64 Solaris 10 5/08. The situation was that: * DB2 buffer pools occupied up to 90% of 32GB RAM on each host * DB2 cached the entire database in its buffer pools o having the file system repeat this was not helpful * running high-load DB2 tests for 2 weeks showed 100%

Hi guys, I'd like to start a new thread about explicit fence synchronization. This time with a Nouveau twist. :-) First, let me define what I understand by implicit/explicit sync: Implicit synchronization * Fences are attached to buffers * Kernel manages fences automatically based on buffer read/write access Explicit synchronization * Fences are passed around independently * Kernel takes

Hi all, Recently there''s been discussion [1] in the Linux community about how filesystems should deal with rename(2), particularly in the case of a crash. ext4 was found to truncate files after a crash, that had been written with open("foo.tmp"), write(), close() and then rename("foo.tmp", "foo"). This is because ext4 uses delayed allocation and may not