lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
Date
Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 20:05 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> So we may have different expectations, because we've seen different
> patterns. Me, I've seen the "events are huge, and you stagger them", so
> that the previous event has time to flow out to disk while you generate
> the next one. There, MS_ASYNC starting IO is _wrong_, because the scale of
> the event is just huge, so trying to push it through the IO subsystem asap
> just makes everything suck.

Isn't the benefit of starting writing immediately greater the smaller
the area in question? If so, couldn't a heuristic be found to decide whether
to initiate IO at once?

Oliver
-
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 20:36    [W:0.184 / U:0.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site