On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, James Litchfield wrote: >> Agreed - msync/munmap is the only guarantee. > > I don't see that the munmap definition assures that anything is written to > "disk". The system is free to buffer the data in RAM as long as it likes > without writing anything at all.
Oddly enough the manpages at the Open Group don't make this clear. So I think it may well be advisable to use msync(3C) before munmap() on MAP_SHARED mappings. However, I think all implementors should, and probably all do (Linux even documents that it does) have an implied msync(2) when doing a munmap(2). I really makes no sense at all to have munmap(2) not imply msync(3C). (That's another thing, I don't see where the standard requires that munmap(2) be synchronous. I think it'd be nice to have an mmap(2) option for requesting whether munmap(2) of the same mapping be synchronous or asynchronous. Async munmap(2) -> no need to mount cross-calls, instead allowing to mapping to be torn down over time. Doing a synchronous msync(3C), then a munmap(2) is a recipe for going real slow, but if munmap(2) does not portably guarantee an implied msync(3C), then would it be safe to do an async msync(2) then munmap(2)??) Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss