lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>If you want to start the IO *now* without waiting on it, call msync(MS_ASYNC)
>> If you don't want to start the IO now, that's really easy, do nothing.
>> If you want to start the IO now and also wait for it to finish, call msync(MS_SYNC)
>
>
> I've already explained the problems with the start-io-in-MS_ASYNC approach.
>

But I've explained that they only matter for people using it in stupid ways.
fsync also poses a performance problem for programs that call it after every
write(2).

>
>> Presently, the first option is unavailable.
>
>
> We need to patch the kernel either way. There's no point in going back to
> either the known-problematic approach or to something half-assed.
>

The system call indicates to the kernel that IO submission should be started.
The earlier the kernel does that, the better (because it is likely that an
MS_SYNC is coming soon).

I think the current way of just moving the dirty bits is half-assed.

Is a more efficient implementation know-problematic? What applications did
you observe problems with, can you remember? Because the current behaviour
is also known-problematic for linux@horizon.com (who are you anyway?)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-10 06:31    [W:0.125 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site