lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [patch] implement smarter atime updates support
    From
    Date
    On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 21:04 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
    > O> you might want to add
    > >
    > > /*
    > > * if the inode is dirty already, do the atime update since
    > > * we'll be doing the disk IO anyway to clean the inode.
    > > */
    > > if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY)
    > > return 1;
    >
    > This makes the actual result somewhat less predictable. Is that wise ?
    > Right now its clear what happens based on what user sequence of events
    > and that this is easily repeatable.

    I can see the repeatability argument; on the flipside, having a system
    of "opportunistic atime", eg as good as you can go cheaply, but with
    minimum guarantees has some attraction as well. For example one could
    imagine a system where the inode gets it's atime updated anyway, just
    not flagged for writing back to disk. If it later undergoes some event
    that would cause it to go to disk, it gets preserved...

    otoh that's even more unpredictable since VM pressure could drop this
    update early.

    For the dirty case, such drawbacks don't exist; it's just one more step
    of "when we can cheaply".

    --
    if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
    Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

    -
    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: 2007-08-05 22:27    [W:3.772 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site