Re: 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?

Mark Lord wrote:

Another intriguing observation:

If I do my file copy test from files that are already cached,
then the data usually gets committed to disk more or less
right away.


And even in that case, /proc/meminfo still shows the memory
as "Dirty", until a "sync" is done.  Why is that?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

References:
- 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?
  - From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?
  - From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?
  - From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?
  - From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?
  - From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?
  - From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Make usbdevice_fs.h (again) useable from userspace
Next by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks
Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.xx: dirty pages never being sync'd to disk?
Next by thread: 2.6.15-rc1 fails to boot on eMac
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]