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

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

linux@horizon.com wrote:

>>That's what MS_ASYNC already does.
> 
> 
> Yes, in violation of the SuS spec.  That's what msync(0) already does,
> too, so the linux-specific extension already exists.
> 
> The standard description of MS_INVALIDATE is very confusing and poorly
> worded, but I think it's designed for a model where mmap() copies rather
> than playing page table tricks, and the OS has to copy the dirty pages
> back and forth between the buffer cache "by hand".  Looked at that way,
> the MS_INVALIDATE wording seems to be intended as something of a "commit
> memory writes back to the file system level" operation.
> 
> Which could also be expected to cause the traditional 30-second sync
> timeout to start applying to the written data.  In the current Linux

Yes as we already have something that does the pte->page work (I'd agree
with your interpretation of MS_INVALIDATE), then we definitely have room
to make MS_ASYNC more efficient for applications like yours that use it
properly.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com