Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422900AbWBIMj3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:39:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422901AbWBIMj3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:39:29 -0500 Received: from smtp200.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.130.125]:54112 "HELO smtp200.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1422900AbWBIMj2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:39:28 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gU2WbsQH7HjIbn8+65567eMO6L7NWvC0lMvYSgGkXyoCa1LOhlTgACyeNS23twfTA4lXPY9a4/aeuYRSO50eJSiT2/+cC+zdXmvIC8TAY/nw8vNCxVJ4o7o4J7dGJV65jkWm9BBKD6vmRZeYYa5MzBR6hjqlX4ZQwDeW+QyOYFU= ; Message-ID: <43EB3801.70903@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:39:29 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: linux@horizon.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sct@redhat.com Subject: Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch? References: <20060209071832.10500.qmail@science.horizon.com> <20060209001850.18ca135f.akpm@osdl.org> <43EAFEB9.2060000@yahoo.com.au> <20060209004208.0ada27ef.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060209004208.0ada27ef.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1693 Lines: 52 Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> >>>2.4: >>> >>> MS_ASYNC: dirty the pagecache pages, start I/O >>> MS_SYNC: dirty the pagecache pages, start I/O, wait on I/O >>> >>>2.6: >>> >>> MS_ASYNC: dirty the pagecache pages >>> MS_SYNC: dirty the pagecache pages, start I/O, wait on I/O. >>> >>>So you're saying that doing the I/O in that 25-100msec window allowed your >>>app to do more pipelining. >>> >>>I think for most scenarios, what we have in 2.6 is better: it gives the app >>>more control over when the I/O should be started. >> >>How so? >> > > > Well, for example you might want to msync a number of disjoint parts of the > mapping, then write them all out in one hit. > That should still be pretty efficient with 2.4 like behaviour? pdflush does write them out in file offset order doesn't it? > Or you may not actually _want_ to start the I/O now - you just want pdflush > to write things back in a reasonable time period, so you don't have unsynced > data floating about in memory for eight hours. That's a quite reasonable > application of msync(MS_ASYNC). > I think data integrity requirements should be handled by MS_SYNC. What the app does lose some control of is when IO actually should get started, (MS_SYNC still allows it to control when IO *finishes*). -- 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/