[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
From:       "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct () redhat ! com>
Date:       2004-03-31 23:41:27
Message-ID: 1080776487.1991.113.camel () sisko ! scot ! redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 23:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >         
> > although I can't find an unambiguous definition of "queued for service"
> > in the online standard.  I'm reading it as requiring that the I/O has
> > reached the block device layer, not simply that it has been marked dirty
> > for some future writeback pass to catch; Uli agrees with that
> > interpretation.
> 
> That interpretation makes pretty much zero sense.
> 
> If you care about the data hitting the disk, you have to use fsync() or 
> similar _anyway_, and pretending anything else is just bogus.

You can make the same argument for either implementation of MS_ASYNC. 
And there's at least one way in which the "submit IO now" version can be
used meaningfully --- if you've got several specific areas of data in
one or more mappings that need flushed to disk, you'd be able to
initiate IO with multiple MS_ASYNC calls and then wait for completion
with either MS_SYNC or fsync().  That gives you an interface that
corresponds somewhat with the region-based filemap_sync();
filemap_fdatawrite(); filemap_datawait() that the kernel itself uses.  

> Having the requirement that it is on some sw-only request queue is
> nonsensical, since such a queue is totally invisible from a user
> perspective.

It's very much visible, just from a performance perspective, if you want
to support "kick off this IO, I'm going to wait for the completion
shortly."  If that's the interpretation of MS_ASYNC, then the app is
basically saying it doesn't want the writeback mechanism to be idle
until the writes have completed, regardless of whether it's a block
device or an NFS file or whatever underneath.

But whether that's a legal use of MS_ASYNC really depends on what the
standard is requiring.  I could be persuaded either way.  Uli?

Does anyone know what other Unixen do here?

--Stephen

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]