Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:59:21 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch? |
| |
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 20:05 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > > So we may have different expectations, because we've seen different > > patterns. Me, I've seen the "events are huge, and you stagger them", so > > that the previous event has time to flow out to disk while you generate > > the next one. There, MS_ASYNC starting IO is _wrong_, because the scale of > > the event is just huge, so trying to push it through the IO subsystem asap > > just makes everything suck. > > Isn't the benefit of starting writing immediately greater the smaller > the area in question? If so, couldn't a heuristic be found to decide whether > to initiate IO at once?
Quite possibly. I suspect you could/should take other issues into account too (like whether the queue to the device is busy or bdflush is already working).
I wouldn't object to that.
Linus - 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/
| |