4 ms·

Sure, you can call your "ex-coworkers at Microsoft" (most of which are irrelevant to debugging/verifying this issue) - or, you can just spend some time reading

Sure, you can call your "ex-coworkers at Microsoft" (most of which are irrelevant to debugging/verifying this issue) - or, you can just spend some time reading the documentation, as previously suggested. The coherency issues are your "tread lightly" warning. The docs regarding FlushViewOfFile expand on this specific issue: Flushing a range of a mapped view initiates writing of dirty pages within that range to the disk. Dirty pages are those whose contents have changed since the file view was mapped. The FlushViewOfFile function does not flush the file metadata, and it does not wait to return until the changes are flushed from the underlying hardware disk cache and physically written to disk. To flush all the dirty pages plus the metadata for the file and ensure that they are physically written to disk, call FlushViewOfFile and then call the FlushFileBuffers function. So, after carefully reading this documentation, we can clearly conclude OP's pull-request is actually missing a call to FlushViewOfFile prior to calling FlushFileBuffers.

zturner 9y ago
This is incorrect. FlushFiewOfFile and FlushFileBuffers only guarantees that contents are written to the physical media. It is not necessary (well, it is not supposed to be necessary) to call either of these functions for other processes to be able to see the changes. The whole point of a cache is that if A writes something, and then B reads it after A finishes writing it, B should see the results of A's modification. Whether it has been flushed to the physical media is irrelevant, because if it hasn't the cache manager can still serve the contents directly from the cache. And a call to Flush is not necessary for that. So, the OP's change is not missing anything. As the article explains, it is in fact the Windows kernel that is behaving incorrectly (which was also confirmed by people who work on the windows kernel).
brucedawson 9y ago
Closing the file is supposed to ensure coherency. It generally does. That it occasionally does not is a bug, that Microsoft will fix.

zturner 9y ago

This is incorrect. FlushFiewOfFile and FlushFileBuffers only guarantees that contents are written to the physical media. It is not necessary (well, it is not supposed to be necessary) to call either of these functions for other processes to be able to see the changes. The whole point of a cache is that if A writes something, and then B reads it after A finishes writing it, B should see the results of A's modification. Whether it has been flushed to the physical media is irrelevant, because if it hasn't the cache manager can still serve the contents directly from the cache. And a call to Flush is not necessary for that. So, the OP's change is not missing anything. As the article explains, it is in fact the Windows kernel that is behaving incorrectly (which was also confirmed by people who work on the windows kernel).

brucedawson 9y ago

Closing the file is supposed to ensure coherency. It generally does. That it occasionally does not is a bug, that Microsoft will fix.