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

[Oliver Neukum]

Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 20:05 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> So we may have different expectations, because we've seen different 
> patterns. Me, I've seen the "events are huge, and you stagger them", so 
> that the previous event has time to flow out to disk while you generate 
> the next one. There, MS_ASYNC starting IO is _wrong_, because the scale of 
> the event is just huge, so trying to push it through the IO subsystem asap 
> just makes everything suck.

Isn't the benefit of starting writing immediately greater the smaller
the area in question? If so, couldn't a heuristic be found to decide whether
to initiate IO at once?

	Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/