Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> Alan and/or Linus:
>
> Am I misreading this or is the Linux implementation of sync() based on
> making the shutdown scripts pause until disk i/o is done? Because I don't
> think commercial unices work that way, I think they work as SuS
> specifies. More reason to rethink this in 2.4 as well as 2.5 and get the
> possible live lock out of the kernel.
>
IMO, the SuS definition sucks. We really do want to do our best to
ensure that pending writes are committed to disk before sys_sync()
returns. As long as that doesn't involve waiting until mid-August.
For example, ext3 users get to enjoy rebooting with `sync ; reboot -f'
to get around all those silly shutdown scripts. This very much relies
upon the sync waiting upon the I/O.
I mean, according to SUS, our sys_sync() implementation could be
asmlinkage void sys_sync(void)
{
return;
}
Because all I/O is already scheduled, thanks to kupdate.
But we want sync to be useful.
>
> If this were only a performance issue I wouldn't push for prompt
> implementation, but anything which can hang the system, particularly in
> shutdown, is bad.
>
If shutdown hangs, it's probably due to something else.
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:52 EST