[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch resend v4] update ctime and mtime for mmaped write
    > But if you didn't notice until now, then the current implementation
    > must be pretty reasonable for you use as well.

    Oh, I definitely noticed. As soon as I tried to port my application
    to 2.6, it broke - as evidenced by my complaints last year. The
    current solution is simple - since it's running on dedicated boxes,
    leave them on 2.4.

    I've now got the hint on how to make it work on 2.6 (sync_file_range()),
    so I can try again. But the pressure to upgrade is not strong, so it
    might be a while.

    You may recall, this subthread started when I responding to "the
    only reason to use msync(MS_ASYNC) is to update timestamps" with a
    counterexample. I still think the purpose of the call is a hint to the
    kernel that writing to the specified page(s) is complete and now would be
    a good time to clean them. Which has very little to do with timestamps.

    Now, my application, which leaves less than a second between the MS_ASYNC
    and a subsequent MS_SYNC to check whether it's done, broke, but I can
    imagine similar cases where MS_ASYNC would remain a useful hint to reduce
    the sort of memory hogging generally associated with "dd if=/dev/zero"
    type operations.

    Reading between the lines of the standard, that seems (to me, at least)
    to obviously be the intended purpose of msync(MS_ASYNC). I wonder if
    there's any historical documentation describing the original intent
    behind creating the call.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-28 11:53    [W:0.019 / U:13.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site