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

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > If you want to start the IO *now* without waiting on it, call msync(MS_ASYNC)
> > If you don't want to start the IO now, that's really easy, do nothing.
> > If you want to start the IO now and also wait for it to finish, call msync(MS_SYNC)
>
>
> I've already explained the problems with the start-io-in-MS_ASYNC approach.

But I've explained that they only matter for people using it in stupid ways.
fsync also poses a performance problem for programs that call it after every
write(2).

> > Presently, the first option is unavailable.
>
>
> We need to patch the kernel either way.  There's no point in going back to
> either the known-problematic approach or to something half-assed.

The system call indicates to the kernel that IO submission should be started.
The earlier the kernel does that, the better (because it is likely that an
MS_SYNC is coming soon).

I think the current way of just moving the dirty bits is half-assed.

Is a more efficient implementation know-problematic? What applications did
you observe problems with, can you remember? Because the current behaviour
is also known-problematic for linux@horizon.com (who are you anyway?)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/