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?


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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.735 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site