From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
Stephen Tweedie <sct@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
Date: 19 Apr 2004 22:54:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1082411657.2237.128.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040416223548.GA27540@mail.shareable.org>
Hi,
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 23:35, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > I've been looking at a discrepancy between msync() behaviour on 2.4.9
> > and newer 2.4 kernels, and it looks like things changed again in
> > 2.5.68.
>
> When you say a discrepancy between 2.4.9 and newer 2.4 kernels, do you
> mean that the msync() behaviour changed during the 2.4 series?
Yes.
> If so, what was the change?
2.4.9 behaved like current 2.6 --- on MS_ASYNC, it did a
set_page_dirty() which means the page will get picked up by the next
5-second bdflush pass. But later 2.4 kernels were changed so that they
started MS_ASYNC IO immediately with filemap_fdatasync() (which is
asynchronous regarding the new IO, but which blocks synchronously if
there is already old IO in flight on the page.)
That was reverted back to the earlier, 2.4.9 behaviour in the 2.5
series.
Cheers,
Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-19 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-31 22:16 Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-03-31 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-03-31 23:41 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 0:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-01 0:30 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-01 15:40 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 16:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-01 16:33 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 16:19 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-01 16:56 ` s390 storage key inconsistency? [was Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?] Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 16:57 ` msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch? Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-01 18:51 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-31 22:53 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-31 23:20 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2004-04-16 22:35 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-19 21:54 ` Stephen C. Tweedie [this message]
2004-04-21 2:10 ` Jamie Lokier
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=1082411657.2237.128.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com \
--to=sct@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox