Re: [patch resend v4] update ctime and mtime for mmaped write

[linux@horizon.com]

> But if you didn't notice until now, then the current implementation
> must be pretty reasonable for you use as well.

Oh, I definitely noticed.  As soon as I tried to port my application
to 2.6, it broke - as evidenced by my complaints last year.  The
current solution is simple - since it's running on dedicated boxes,
leave them on 2.4.

I've now got the hint on how to make it work on 2.6 (sync_file_range()),
so I can try again.  But the pressure to upgrade is not strong, so it
might be a while.

You may recall, this subthread started when I responding to "the
only reason to use msync(MS_ASYNC) is to update timestamps" with a
counterexample.  I still think the purpose of the call is a hint to the
kernel that writing to the specified page(s) is complete and now would be
a good time to clean them.  Which has very little to do with timestamps.

Now, my application, which leaves less than a second between the MS_ASYNC
and a subsequent MS_SYNC to check whether it's done, broke, but I can
imagine similar cases where MS_ASYNC would remain a useful hint to reduce
the sort of memory hogging generally associated with "dd if=/dev/zero"
type operations.

Reading between the lines of the standard, that seems (to me, at least)
to obviously be the intended purpose of msync(MS_ASYNC).  I wonder if
there's any historical documentation describing the original intent
behind creating the call.

--
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:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>