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

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> 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?

Quite possibly. I suspect you could/should take other issues into account 
too (like whether the queue to the device is busy or bdflush is already 
working).

I wouldn't object to that.

		Linus
-
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/