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

[Andrew Morton]

Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  I don't think anyone would use MS_ASYNC for anything other than
>  performance improvement, so it is not like we need super well
>  defined behaviour... the earlier it will start IO AFAIKS the better.

Well, no.  Consider a continuously-running application which modifies its
data store via MAP_SHARED+msync(MS_ASYNC).  If the msync() immediately
started I/O, the disk would be seeking all over the place all the time.  The
queue merging and timer-based unplugging would help here, but it won't be
as good as a big, infrequent ascending-file-offset pdflush pass.

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.
-
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/