[stgt] [PATCH 1/1] tgtd: Patch to add bsoflags options o tgtd.
fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp
Fri Jun 4 05:35:49 CEST 2010
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:10:43 -0300
Daniel Henrique Debonzi <debonzi at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:21:00 -0300
> > Daniel Henrique Debonzi <debonzi at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> One idea to solve it and don't make necessary to touch all backing
> >> stores to avoid this issue is to create a new template like bs_rdrw_sync
> >> O_SYNC and O_DIRECT flags on open, and don't have the options as this
> >> patch does. This way I got want I am interested in and don't need to
> >> involve all the other stuff. What are your thoughts about it?
> > Or a new option to touch only bs_rdrw.
> > However, I want to know why you want to use O_SYNC and O_DIRECT.
> > - what's the advantage of O_SYNC compared with the current approach
> > (sync_file after write)? notably faster?
> We would like to be able to control those flags because for our case it
> has better performance. Some tests done recently showed that we can get
> good better results when using O_DIRECT than sync_file.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
As we discussed, "--bsoflags" can't be applied to all the bs modes
equally (e.g. bs_aio can use only O_DIRECT). But I guess that creating
multiple options such as --bsoflags_rw, --bsoflags_aio, etc is too
I'll take the approach add only "--bsoflags". --bsoflags="async
direct" is not consistent with the other options. Let's use "," like
I don't think that we need "none" or "async". Let's support "sync" and
Can you please send the updated patch?
> > - why do you want to use O_DIRECT with bd_rdrw? bd_aio does aio with
> > O_DIRECT? It's not enough for you?
> AIO does not work with the kernel version we are using at moment.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the stgt