Messages in this thread |  | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] smarter atime updates | Date | 30 Nov 2001 14:34:40 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <87n1144mo6.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> By author: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Hi, > > Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> writes: > > > mark_inode_dirty() is quite expensive for journalling filesystems, > > and we're calling it a lot more than we need to. > > > > --- linux-2.4.17-pre1/fs/inode.c Mon Nov 26 11:52:07 2001 > > +++ linux-akpm/fs/inode.c Thu Nov 29 21:53:02 2001 > > @@ -1187,6 +1187,8 @@ void __init inode_init(unsigned long mem > > > > void update_atime (struct inode *inode) > > { > > + if (inode->i_atime == CURRENT_TIME) > > + return; > > if ( IS_NOATIME (inode) ) return; > > if ( IS_NODIRATIME (inode) && S_ISDIR (inode->i_mode) ) return; > > if ( IS_RDONLY (inode) ) return; > > in include/linux/fs.h: > > #define UPDATE_ATIME(inode) \ > do { \ > if ((inode)->i_atime != CURRENT_TIME) \ > update_atime (inode); \ > } while (0) > > How about this macro? (add likely()?) >
The only potential issue I can see (with either approach) is that it seems to break filesystems for which atime has a granularity finer than 1 s.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - 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/
|  |