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

[Andrew Morton]

linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > 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.
> 
>  You're assuming a brain-dead application.

We've covered this.  Handing pte-dirty pages over to pdflush for prompt
writeback is a perfectly valid, sensible and fast thing to do.

It efficiently solves the single biggest problem with using MAP_SHARED
instead of write().

>  As I said, I'm actively looking for a way, on Linux 2.6.x, x <= 15,
>  to start disk writes on part of an mmapped file without either blocking
>  (yet)

I cannot think of a way, sorry.

> or writing other dirty pages that aren't complete yet.

msync() will write all of the file's dirty pages and it has always has done
that.
-
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/