lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) blocks?
    On Tue 2008-06-03 10:01:22, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
    > On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
    > > Hi!
    > >
    > >> > > > All I can say so far is that I find the same as you do:
    > >> > > > SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE (after writing) takes a significant amount of time,
    > >> > > > more than half as long as when you add in SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER too.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Which make the sync_file_range call pretty pointless: your usage seems
    > >> > > > perfectly reasonable to me, but somehow we've broken its behaviour.
    > >> > > > I'll be investigating ...
    > >> > >
    > >> > > It will block on disk queue fullness - sysrq-W will tell.
    > >> >
    > >> > Ah, thank you. What a disappointment, though it's understandable.
    > >> > Doesn't that very severely limit the usefulness of the system call?
    > >>
    > >> A bit. The request queue size is runtime tunable though.
    > >
    > > Which /sys is that? What happens if I set the queue size to pretty
    > > much infinity, will memory management die horribly?
    > >
    > >> I expect major users of this system call will be applications which do
    > >> small-sized overwrites into large files, mainly databases. That is,
    > >> once the application developers discover its existence. I'm still
    > >> getting expressions of wonder from people who I tell about the
    > >> five-year-old fadvise().
    > >
    > > Hey, you have one user now, its called s2disk. But for this call to be
    > > useful, we'd need asynchronous variant... is there such thing?
    > >
    > > Okay, I can fork and do the call from another process, but...
    > >
    > >> > I admit the flag isn't called SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE_WITHOUT_WAITING,
    > >> > but I don't suppose Pavel and I are the only ones misled by it.
    > >>
    > >> Yup, this caveat/restriction should be in the manpage.
    > >
    > > Michael, this is something for you I guess?
    >
    > Pavel,
    >
    > Just to confirm: you are meaning that the sentence
    >
    > Notice that even this this may and will block if you attempt
    > to write more than request queue size.
    >
    > should be added to the man page under the description of
    > SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE, right?

    Yes.
    Pavel

    --
    (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
    (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-03 19:21    [W:0.028 / U:31.780 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site