How are the O_SYNC and O_DIRECT flags in open(2) different/alike?

The use and effects of the O_SYNC and O_DIRECT flags is very confusing and appears to vary somewhat among platforms. From 开发者_开发技巧the Linux man page (see an example here), O_DIRECT provides synchronous I/O, minimizes cache effects and requires you to handle block size alignment yourself. O_SYNC just guarantees synchronous I/O. Although both guarantee that data is written into the hard disk's cache, I believe that direct I/O operations are supposed to be faster than plain synchronous I/O since they bypass the page cache (Though FreeBSD's man page for open(2) states that the cache is bypassed when O_SYNC is used. See here).

What exactly are the differences between the O_DIRECT and O_SYNC flags? Some implementations suggest using O_SYNC | O_DIRECT. Why?

O_DIRECT alone only promises that the kernel will avoid copying data from user space to kernel space, and will instead write it directly via DMA (Direct memory access; if possible). Data does not go into caches. There is no strict guarantee that the function will return only after all data has been transferred.

O_SYNC guarantees that the call will not return before all data has been transferred to the disk (as far as the OS can tell). This still does not guarantee that the data isn't somewhere in the harddisk write cache, but it is as much as the OS can guarantee.

O_DIRECT|O_SYNC is the combination of these, i.e. "DMA + guarantee".

Actuall under linux 2.6, o_direct is syncronous, see the man page:

manpage of open, there is 2 section about it..

Under 2.4 it is not guaranteed

O_DIRECT (Since Linux 2.4.10) Try to minimize cache effects of the I/O to and from this file. Ingeneral this will degrade performance, but it is useful in special situations, such as when applications do their own caching. File I/O is done directly to/from user-space buffers. The O_DIRECT flag on its own makes an effort to transfer data synchronously, but does not give the guarantees of the O_SYNC flag that data and necessary metadata are transferred. To guarantee synchronous I/O, O_SYNC must be used in addition to O_DIRECT. See NOTES below for further discussion.

A semantically similar (but deprecated) interface for block devices is described in raw(8).

but under 2.6 it is guaranteed, see

O_DIRECT

The O_DIRECT flag may impose alignment restrictions on the length and address of userspace buffers and the file offset of I/Os. In Linux alignment restrictions vary by file system and kernel version and might be absent entirely. However there is currently no file system-independent interface for an application to discover these restrictions for a given file or file system. Some file systems provide their own interfaces for doing so, for example the XFS_IOC_DIOINFO operation in xfsctl(3).

Under Linux 2.4, transfer sizes, and the alignment of the user buffer and the file offset must all be multiples of the logical block size of the file system. Under Linux 2.6, alignment to 512-byte boundaries suffices.

O_DIRECT I/Os should never be run concurrently with the fork(2) system call, if the memory buffer is a private mapping (i.e., any mapping created with the mmap(2) MAP_PRIVATE flag; this includes memory allocated on the heap and statically allocated buffers). Any such I/Os, whether submitted via an asynchronous I/O interface or from another thread in the process, should be completed before fork(2) is called. Failure to do so can result in data corruption and undefined behavior in parent and child processes. This restriction does not apply when the memory buffer for the O_DIRECT I/Os was created using shmat(2) or mmap(2) with the MAP_SHARED flag. Nor does this restriction apply when the memory buffer has been advised as MADV_DONTFORK with madvise(2), ensuring that it will not be available to the child after fork(2).

The O_DIRECT flag was introduced in SGI IRIX, where it has alignment restrictions similar to those of Linux 2.4. IRIX has also a fcntl(2) call to query appropriate alignments, and sizes. FreeBSD 4.x introduced a flag of the same name, but without alignment restrictions.

O_DIRECT support was added under Linux in kernel version 2.4.10. Older Linux kernels simply ignore this flag. Some file systems may not implement the flag and open() will fail with EINVAL if it is used.

Applications should avoid mixing O_DIRECT and normal I/O to the same file, and especially to overlapping byte regions in the same file. Even when the file system correctly handles the coherency issues in this situation, overall I/O throughput is likely to be slower than using either mode alone. Likewise, applications should avoid mixing mmap(2) of files with direct I/O to the same files.

The behaviour of O_DIRECT with NFS will differ from local file systems. Older kernels, or kernels configured in certain ways, may not support this combination. The NFS protocol does not support passing the flag to the server, so O_DIRECT I/O will only bypass the page cache on the client; the server may still cache the I/O. The client asks the server to make the I/O synchronous to preserve the synchronous semantics of O_DIRECT. Some servers will perform poorly under these circumstances, especially if the I/O size is small. Some servers may also be configured to lie to clients about the I/O having reached stable storage; this will avoid the performance penalty at some risk to data integrity in the event of server power failure. The Linux NFS client places no alignment restrictions on O_DIRECT I/O.

In summary, O_DIRECT is a potentially powerful tool that should be used with caution. It is recommended that applications treat use of O_DIRECT as a performance option which is disabled by default.

"The thing that has always disturbed me about O_DIRECT is that the whole interface is just stupid, and was probably designed by a deranged monkey on some serious mind-controlling substances."---Linus

AFAIK, O_DIRECT bypasses the page cache. O_SYNC uses page cache but syncs it immediately. Page cache is shared between processes so if there is another process that is working on the same file without O_DIRECT flag can read the correct data.

This IBM doc explains the difference rather clearly, I think.

A file opened in the O_DIRECT mode ("direct I/O"), GPFS™ transfers data directly between the user buffer and the file on the disk.Using direct I/O may provide some performance benefits in the following cases:

• The file is accessed at random locations.
• There is no access locality.

Direct transfer between the user buffer and the disk can only happen if all of the following conditions are true: The number of bytes transferred is a multiple of 512 bytes. The file offset is a multiple of 512 bytes. The user memory buffer address is aligned on a 512-byte boundary. When these conditions are not all true, the operation will still proceed but will be treated more like other normal file I/O, with the O_SYNC flag that flushes the dirty buffer to disk.