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?
linux@horizon.com wrote:
>
> > Well, no. Consider a continuously-running application which modifies its
> > data store via MAP_SHARED+msync(MS_ASYNC). If the msync() immediately
> > started I/O, the disk would be seeking all over the place all the time. The
> > queue merging and timer-based unplugging would help here, but it won't be
> > as good as a big, infrequent ascending-file-offset pdflush pass.
> >
> > Secondly, consider the behaviour of the above application if it is modifying
> > the same page relatively frequently (quite likely). If MS_ASYNC starts I/O
> > immediately, that page will get written 10, 100 or 1000 times per second.
> > If MS_ASYNC leaves it to pdflush, that page gets written once per 30
> > seconds, so we do far much less I/O.
>
> You're assuming a brain-dead application.

We've covered this. Handing pte-dirty pages over to pdflush for prompt
writeback is a perfectly valid, sensible and fast thing to do.

It efficiently solves the single biggest problem with using MAP_SHARED
instead of write().

> As I said, I'm actively looking for a way, on Linux 2.6.x, x <= 15,
> to start disk writes on part of an mmapped file without either blocking
> (yet)

I cannot think of a way, sorry.

> or writing other dirty pages that aren't complete yet.

msync() will write all of the file's dirty pages and it has always has done
that.
-
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 08:34    [W:0.061 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site