[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1177677058.28223.11.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:30:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Marat Buharov <marat.buharov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ext3][kernels >= 2.6.20.7 at least] KDE going comatose when
FS is under heavy write load (massive starvation)
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 15:59 +0400, Marat Buharov wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Aside: why the heck do applications think that their data is so important
> > that they need to fsync it all the time. I used to run a kernel on my
> > laptop which had "return 0;" at the top of fsync() and fdatasync(). Most
> > pleasurable.
>
> So, if having fake fsync() and fdatasync() is pleasurable for laptop
> and desktop, may be it's time to add option into Kconfig which
> disables normal fsync behaviour in favor of robust desktop?
Nah, just teaching user-space to behave themselves should be sufficient;
there is just no way kicker can justify doing a fdatasync(), I mean,
come on its just showing a friggin menu. I have always wondered why that
thing was so damn slow, like it needs to fetch stuff like that from all
four corners of disk, feh!
Just sliding over a sub-menu can take more than a second; I mean, it
_really_ is just faster to just start things from your favourite shell.
No way is globally disabling fsync() a good thing. I guess Andrew just
is a sucker for punishment :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists