[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime
    On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 14:25 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:36:22PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
    > > (Corrected Chris Wedgwood's name and email.)
    > >
    > > My friend Akkana followed my advice to use noatime on one of her
    > > machines, but discovered that mutt was unusable because it always
    > > thought that new messages had arrived since the last time it had
    > > checked a folder (mbox format). I thought this was a bummer, so I
    > > wrote a "relative lazy atime" patch which only updates the atime if
    > > the old atime was less than the ctime or mtime. This is not the same
    > > as the lazy atime patch of yore[1], which maintained a list of inodes
    > > with dirty atimes and wrote them out on unmount.
    > Another idea, similar to how atime updates work in xfs currently might
    > be interesting: Always update atime in core, but don't start a
    > transaction just for it - instead only flush it when you'd do it anyway,
    > that is another transaction or evicting the inode.

    Hmm. That adds a cost to evicting what the vfs considers a clean inode.
    It seems wrong, but if that's what xfs does, it must not be a problem.

    David Kleikamp
    IBM Linux Technology Center

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-05 19:01    [W:0.020 / U:8.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site