Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
If we add this to the kernel, we should coordinate with glibc.
Is this change amenable to the glibc folks for RHEL6?
Thanks,
-Eric
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #691267 +++
------------------------------------------------------------
commit b7ed78f56575074f29ec99d8984f347f6c99c914
Author: Sage Weil <sage>
Date: Thu Mar 10 11:31:30 2011 -0800
introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system
It is frequently useful to sync a single file system, instead of all
mounted file systems via sync(2):
- On machines with many mounts, it is not at all uncommon for some of
them to hang (e.g. unresponsive NFS server). sync(2) will get stuck on
those and may never get to the one you do care about (e.g., /).
- Some applications write lots of data to the file system and then
want to make sure it is flushed to disk. Calling fsync(2) on each
file introduces unnecessary ordering constraints that result in a large
amount of sub-optimal writeback/flush/commit behavior by the file
system.
There are currently two ways (that I know of) to sync a single super_block:
- BLKFLSBUF ioctl on the block device: That also invalidates the bdev
mapping, which isn't usually desirable, and doesn't work for non-block
file systems.
- 'mount -o remount,rw' will call sync_filesystem as an artifact of the
current implemention. Relying on this little-known side effect for
something like data safety sounds foolish.
Both of these approaches require root privileges, which some applications
do not have (nor should they need?) given that sync(2) is an unprivileged
operation.
This patch introduces a new system call syncfs(2) that takes an fd and
syncs only the file system it references. Maybe someday we can
$ sync /some/path
and not get
sync: ignoring all arguments
The syscall is motivated by comments by Al and Christoph at the last LSF.
syncfs(2) seems like an appropriate name given statfs(2).
A similar ioctl was also proposed a while back, see
http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=127970513829285&w=2
Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro.org.uk>
commit c7a1fcd8e6e0c3c8f4f8f74fc926ff04da3bf7a7
Author: Andrew Morton <akpm>
Date: Tue Mar 22 16:30:07 2011 -0700
include/asm-generic/unistd.h: fix syncfs syscall number
syncfs() is duplicating name_to_handle_at() due to a merging mistake.
Cc: Sage Weil <sage>
Cc: Al Viro <viro.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds>
------------------------------------------------------------
Architecture specific commits:
------------------------------------------------------------
commit 1bbf28756149a0aa0e3c8a74cea9bbe715639027
Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf>
Date: Fri Mar 25 18:45:20 2011 +0100
MIPS: Wire up syncfs(2).
Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf>
commit d0d2e31af691ed3dbb4e556bf939b86ef745e6a3
Author: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens.com>
Date: Wed Mar 23 10:15:58 2011 +0100
[S390] wire up sys_syncfs
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky.com>
commit 4e3d96deff59d126cfa289645e136e295e65480f
Author: Mike Frysinger <vapier>
Date: Tue Mar 22 13:41:22 2011 -0400
Blackfin: wire up new syncfs syscall
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier>
commit 9298168d16faf939141cddc836b6b9b1ef2a8aac
Author: Tony Luck <tony.luck>
Date: Tue Mar 22 10:54:24 2011 -0700
[IA64] New syscalls for 2.6.39
Four new syscalls:
sys_name_to_handle_at
sys_open_by_handle_at
sys_clock_adjtime
sys_syncfs
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck>
commit 2a03cfbd906dc9bbf5e9a97727cf4ba1889d4829
Author: Paul Mundt <lethal>
Date: Tue Mar 22 21:56:08 2011 +0900
sh: wire up sys_syncfs.
Signed-off-by: Paul Mundt <lethal>
------------------------------------------------------------
--- Additional comment from harshula on 2011-03-27 22:09:50 EDT ---
Upstream discussion:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/51497/
Andreas, this was added to the upstream kernel.
This is not a request to change a symbol, just pull in a very relevant performance feature that this new system call introduces.
We do not have a "no new syscall" kernel policy, is there some reason that glibc needs to be more static than the kernel for new symbols?
We should have a call and discuss this, thanks!
Andreas, how can adding a new symbol break the abi. It adds to the ABI, no change.
Are you of the position that you cannot add new calls to the ABI for the entire life time of a release?
Please do no close this without discussion of the policy. We can take this up in a RHEL release meeting.
This has been discussed to death already several times, just search bugzilla. You cannot add a new symbol to glibc without breaking the ABI, or rebasing glibc to the next release.