[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:0.382 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site