Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?

Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Secondly, consider the behaviour of the above application if it is modifying
>  > the same page relatively frequently (quite likely).  If MS_ASYNC starts I/O
>  > immediately, that page will get written 10, 100 or 1000 times per second. 
>  > If MS_ASYNC leaves it to pdflush, that page gets written once per 30
>  > seconds, so we do far much less I/O.
>  > 
>  > We just don't know.  It's better to leave it up to the application designer
>  > rather than lumping too many operations into the one syscall.
> 
>  Well it remains the same conceptual operation (asynchronously "schedule"
>  dirty pages for writeout). However it simply becomes more useful to start
>  the writeout immediately, given that's the (pretty explicit) hint that is
>  given to us.

If you want to start the I/O now, fine, start the I/O now.

If you don't want to start I/O now, fine, don't start I/O now.

If msync() were to unconditionally start I/O, you don't get that option.

It's pretty simple, isn't it?
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement Swap Prefetching v23
• Next by Date: Re: [stable] Re: [patch 6/6] [NETFILTER]: Fix another crash in ip_nat_pptp (CVE-2006-0037)
• Previous by thread: Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
• Next by thread: Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
• 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]