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?
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, linux@horizon.com wrote:
>
>>No. MS_ASYNC says "I need the data written now.".
>
>
> Says you.
>
> I say (and I have a decade of Linux historical behaviour to back it up)
> that is says "I'm done, start flushing this out asynchronously like all
> the other data I have written".
>
> And yes, there are performance implications. But your claim that "start IO
> now" performs better is bogus. It _sometimes_ performs better, but
> sometimes performs much worse.
>
> Take an example. You have a 200MB dirty area in a 1GB machine. You do
> MS_ASYNC. What do you want to happen?
>

It quite obviously depends on the context in which one is using it,
which will depend on what one expects it to do (unless one is an idiot).

If linux@horizon.com's[1] database has dirtied 200MB of data and
knows it will not dirty it again and has several hundred ms of useful
work to do before it must call MS_SYNC, then...

> Do you want IO to be started on all of it?

... yes.

[1] Come on, linux, can you at least make up a name for me, or are
you really called Linux? (in which case you'd better make up a
new name anyway when arguing with Linus about Linux, for the
sake of everyone's sanity)

--
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 19:59    [W:0.186 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site