From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch? From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" In-Reply-To: <20040421021010.GC23621@mail.shareable.org> References: <1080771361.1991.73.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> <20040416223548.GA27540@mail.shareable.org> <1082411657.2237.128.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> <20040421021010.GC23621@mail.shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1082541128.2060.14.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 21 Apr 2004 10:52:09 +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jamie Lokier Cc: linux-mm , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , Ulrich Drepper , Stephen Tweedie List-ID: Hi, On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 03:10, Jamie Lokier wrote: > msync(0) has always had behaviour consistent with the <=2.4.9 and > >=2.5.68 MS_ASYNC behaviour, is that right? Not sure about "always", but it looks like it recently at least. 2.2 msync was implemented very differently but seems, from the source, to have the same property --- do_write_page() calls f_op->write() on msync, and MS_SYNC forces an fsync after the writes. But 2.4 and 2.6 share much more similar code to each other. So all since 2.2 seem to do the fully-async, deferred writeback behaviour for flags==0. --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: aart@kvack.org