[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:0.068 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site