Right. That makes sense.
On Monday, July 16, 2018, 7:27:18 PM PDT, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 02:15:17 -0000, David Frank said:
> inking. I'm checking out if the flag does what is is said to do-- I don't
> have
> to call msync function, which would boost performance.
Note that this can actually *kill* performance, because this means that the
kernel has to flush to backing store every single time it notes a change,
whereas if you use msync only at those points your software needs a sync point,
it can do it at only those points....
Thought experiment: Imagine a workflow that needs to checkpoint every 1000
changes to the shared segment (for instance, if you've mapped an array with
1000 rows, do a for() loop across it incrementing one item, and checkpoint when
they're all incremented). msync after the loop completes is one sync, while a
worst-case
using MAP_SYNC could result in a flush after every single increment (if the
system
is rescheduling the process over and over - for instance, if there's also
another
syscall inside the loop).
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
