lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >
    > > We just don't know. It's better to leave it up to the application designer
    > > rather than lumping too many operations into the one syscall.
    >
    > Well it remains the same conceptual operation (asynchronously "schedule"
    > dirty pages for writeout). However it simply becomes more useful to start
    > the writeout immediately, given that's the (pretty explicit) hint that is
    > given to us.

    If you want to start the I/O now, fine, start the I/O now.

    If you don't want to start I/O now, fine, don't start I/O now.

    If msync() were to unconditionally start I/O, you don't get that option.

    It's pretty simple, isn't it?
    -
    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 05:49    [W:5.897 / U:0.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site