On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 21:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Yan Zheng wrote: > > > > I noticed some data and metadata getting out of sync on disk, despite > > > > wrapping my writes with btrfs transactions. After digging into it a bit, > > > > it appears to be a larger problem with inode size/data getting written > > > > during a regular commit. > > > > [...] > > > > > > This is the desired behaviour of data=ordered. Btrfs transaction commit > > > don't flush data, and metadata wont get updated until data IO complete. > > > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/869/match=new+data+ordered+code > > > > Ah, right, so it is. > > > > I think what I'm looking for then is a mount mode to get the old behavior, > > such that each commit flushes previously written data. Probably a call to > > btrfs_wait_ordered_extents() in btrfs_commit_transaction(), or something > > along those lines... > > Could you describe the end goal a bit? I'm happy to make modes where > it'll do what you need. The end goal is for data to flush and commit with the transaction that was running when the write() occured. So, after a sequence like write A setxattr B <crash> you should always see A if you see B. And after a sequence like ioctl(fd, BTRFS_IOC_TRANS_START) write A setxattr B close(fd) <crash> you should see either both A and B or neither A nor B. fsync() isn't really appropriate since it forces a commit (or a tree log entry?), and it would still be better to roll lots of operations up together. Either a mount mode that includes dirty data in each transaction commit (and probably disables the tree log?), or a per-file fsync-like operation that commits an individual file's dirty data to the running transaction would do the trick. sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
