On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > The problem is the write() // 0+ times. ÂThe kernel has no idea what >> > new result you want the file to contain because the application isn't >> > telling us. >> >> Isn't it safe for the kernel to wait until the first write or close >> before writing anything to disk? > > I'm afraid not. ÂPicture an application that opens a thousand files and > writes 1MB to each of them, and then didn't close any. ÂIf we waited > until close, you'd have 1GB of memory pinned or staged somehow. That's not what I asked. ;) I asked to wait until the first write (or close). That way, you don't get unintentional empty files. One step further, you don't have to keep the data in memory, you're free to write them to disk. You just wouldn't update the meta-data (yet). >> > This isn't hard, it's on my TODO list. >> >> What about a new flag: O_ATOMIC that'd take the guesswork out of the kernel? > > We can't guess beyond a single write call. ÂOtherwise we get into > the problem above where an application can force the kernel to wait > forever. ÂI'm not against O_ATOMIC to enable the new btrfs > functionality, but it will still be limited to one write. > > -chris > -- Olaf -- 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
