From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux@horizon.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sct@redhat.com
Subject: Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:34:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200602102034.07531.oliver@neukum.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602101056130.19172@g5.osdl.org>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-10 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 95+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-09 7:18 msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch? linux
2006-02-09 8:18 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-09 8:35 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-09 8:42 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-09 12:38 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-09 12:39 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-09 17:48 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 3:36 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 3:50 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 3:57 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 4:13 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 4:30 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 4:43 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 4:52 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 5:13 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 5:29 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 5:50 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 6:03 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 6:13 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 6:31 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 6:46 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 6:57 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 7:14 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 12:41 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 16:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 17:00 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 17:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 17:59 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 18:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 19:29 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 19:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 19:52 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-11 5:49 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 16:37 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 17:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 17:37 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 18:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 18:38 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 19:34 ` Oliver Neukum [this message]
2006-02-10 19:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 20:11 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 21:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 21:28 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 20:03 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 21:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 21:55 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-02-10 22:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 23:02 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-02-10 23:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-11 19:07 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-02-10 17:29 ` linux
2006-02-10 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-02-10 18:57 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 8:00 ` linux
2006-02-10 13:18 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-10 7:15 ` linux
2006-02-10 7:28 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-09 11:18 ` linux
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-31 22:16 Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-03-31 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-03-31 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-03-31 23:41 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-03-31 23:41 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 0:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-01 0:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-01 0:30 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-01 0:30 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-01 15:40 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 15:40 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 16:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-01 16:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-01 16:33 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 16:33 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 16:19 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-01 16:19 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-01 16:57 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 16:57 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 18:51 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-01 18:51 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-31 22:53 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-31 22:53 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-31 23:20 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-03-31 23:20 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-16 22:35 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-16 22:35 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-19 21:54 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-19 21:54 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-21 2:10 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-21 2:10 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-21 9:52 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-21 9:52 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200602102034.07531.oliver@neukum.org \
--to=oliver@neukum.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=sct@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.