like said in the title, I don't really understand the usage of this syscall. I was writing some program that write some data in a file, and the tutorial I've seen told me to use sys_sync syscall. But my problem is why and when should we use this? The data isn't already written on the file?
2 Answers
The manual says:
sync - Synchronize cached writes to persistent storage
So it is written to the file cache in memory, not on disk.
You rarely have to use sync unless you are writing really important data and need to make sure that data is on disk before you go on. One example of systems that use sync a lot are databases (such as MySQL or PostgreSQL).
So in other words, it is theoretically in your file, just not on disk and therefore if you lose electricity, you could lose the data, especially if you have a lot of RAM and many writes in a raw, it may privilege the writes to cache for a long while, increasing the risk of data loss.
But how can a file be not on the disk? I understand the concept of cache but if I wrote in the disk why would it be in a different place?
First, when you write to a file, you send the data to the Kernel. You don't directly send it to the disk. Some kernel driver is then responsible to write the data to disk. In my days on Apple 2 and Amiga computers, I would actually directly read/write to disk. And at least the Amiga had a DMA so you could setup a buffer, then tell the disk I/O to do a read or a write and it would send you an interrupt when done. On the Apple 2, you had to write loops in assembly language with precise timings to read/write data on floppy disks... A different era!
Although you could, of course, directly access the disk (but with a Kernel like Linux, you'd have to make sure the kernel gives you hands free to do that...).
Cache is primarily used for speed. It is very slow to write to disk (as far as a human is concerned, it looks extremely fast, but compared to how much data the CPU can push to the drive, it's still slow).
So what happens is that the kernel has a task to write data to disk. That task wakes up as soon as data appears in the cache and ends once all the caches are transferred to disk. This task works in parallel. You can have one such task per drive (which is especially useful when you have a system such as RAID 1).
If your application fills up the cache, then a further write will block until some of the cache can be replaced.
and the tutorial I've seen told me to use sys_sync syscall
Well that sounds silly, unless you're doing filesystem write benchmarking or something.
If you have one really critical file that you want to make sure is "durable" wrt. power outages before you do something else (like sent a network packet to acknowledge a complete transfer), use fsync(fd) to sync just that one file's data and metadata.
(In asm, call number SYS_fsync from sys/syscall.h, with the file descriptor as the first register arg.)
But my problem is why and when should we use this?
Generally never use the sync system call in programs you're writing.
There are interactive use-cases where you'd normally use the wrapper command of the same name, sync(1). e.g. with removable media, to get the kernel started doing write-back now, so unmount will take less time once you finish typing it. Or for some benchmarking use-cases.
The system shutdown scripts may run sync after unmounting filesystems (and remounting / read-only), before making a reboot(2) system call.
Re: why sync(2) exists
No, your data isn't already on disk right after echo foo > bar.txt.
Most OSes, including Linux, do write-back caching, not write-through, for file writes.
You don't want write() system calls to wait for an actual magnetic disk when there's free RAM, because the traditional way to do I/O is synchronous so simple single-threaded programs wouldn't be able to do anything else (like reading more data or computing anything) while waiting for write() to return. Blocking for ~10 ms on every write system call would be disastrous; that's as long as a whole scheduler timeslice. (It would still be bad even with SSDs, but of course OSes were designed before SSDs were a thing.) Even just queueing up the DMA would be slow, especially for small file writes that aren't a whole number of aligned sectors, so even letting the disk's own write-back write caching work wouldn't be good enough.
Therefore, file writes do create "dirty" pages of kernel buffers that haven't yet been sent to the disk. Sometimes we can even avoid the IO entirely, e.g. for tmp files that get deleted before anything triggers write-back. On Linux, dirty_writeback_centisecs defaults to 1500 (15 seconds) before the kernel starts write-back, unless it's running low on free pages. (Heuristics for what "low" means use other tunable values).
If you really want writes to flush to disk immediately and wait for data to be on disk, mount with -o sync. Or for one program, have it use open(O_SYNC) or O_DSYNC (for just the data, not metadata like timestamps).
See Are file reads served from dirtied pages in the page cache?
There are other advantages to write-back, including delayed allocation even at the filesystem level. The FS can wait until it knows how big the file will be before even deciding where to put it, allowing better decisions that reduce fragmentation. e.g. a small file can go into a gap that would have been a bad place to start a potentially-large file. (It just have to reserve space to make sure it can put it somewhere.) XFS was one of the first filesystems to do "lazy" delayed allocation, and ext4 has also had the feature for a while.
Related