- Oct 11, 2009
- 5,577
- 2,816
- 113
Ideally, someone who has reformatted with f2fs, too.
Looking to see if the nobarrier disk mount option is being used. You can check by running mount with no parameters from a terminal.
Why I even care (all kinds of nerd below this line)
when you mount a disk (primary or logical) with the nobarrier option, you've made fsync() a no-op.
The fsync() function forces data in the buffer to be actually written to the disk when called.
A no-op means that the command is interpreted as being blank and skipped.
Mounting a disk with nobarrier means that you're not forcing the buffer to be written and is a good way to lose data. It's from "trust the file system and someone else to take care of it" school of thought. Because you're not forcing data to be written, disk access times are much faster (on paper, we're talking about nanoseconds here) than when fsync() is called.
Lenovo is using this hack on the Moto Z. Curious if OnePlus is doing it, too.
Looking to see if the nobarrier disk mount option is being used. You can check by running mount with no parameters from a terminal.
Why I even care (all kinds of nerd below this line)
when you mount a disk (primary or logical) with the nobarrier option, you've made fsync() a no-op.
The fsync() function forces data in the buffer to be actually written to the disk when called.
A no-op means that the command is interpreted as being blank and skipped.
Mounting a disk with nobarrier means that you're not forcing the buffer to be written and is a good way to lose data. It's from "trust the file system and someone else to take care of it" school of thought. Because you're not forcing data to be written, disk access times are much faster (on paper, we're talking about nanoseconds here) than when fsync() is called.
Lenovo is using this hack on the Moto Z. Curious if OnePlus is doing it, too.