![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 20:24 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Peter Staubach wrote: > > The changes add support to detect when the modification time needs to be > > updated by placing a hook in __set_pages_dirty_buffers and > > __set_pages_dirty_nobuffers. One of these two routines will be invoked > > when the dirty bit is detected in the pte. The hook sets a new bit in the > > address_space mapping struct indicating that the file which is associated > > with that part of the address space needs to have its modification and > > change time attributes updated.> > You're adding a little overhead to every set_page_dirty, when the vast > majority (ordinary writes) don't need it: their mctime update is already > well taken care of. (Or should we be deleting the code that does that? > I think I'd rather not dare.) It would make the code more symetric. > I think you'd do better to target those places where set_page_dirty is > called on a mapped page - and do the file_update_time at that point - > or as near to that point as is sensible/permitted given the locking > (vma->vm_file gives you the file without needing inode_update_time). > Peter Zijlstra has patches relating to dirty mmaps in the -mm tree > at present: I need to take a look at those, and I'll see if it would > make sense to factor in this mctime issue on top of those - you may > want to do the same. Look for the callsites of set_page_dirty_balance(), those two points are where writable file pages are dirtied. PeterZ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-05-18 13:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||