[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, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
    > should it be atime-dirty or non-critical-dirty? (ie. make it more
    > generic to cover cases where we might have other non-critical fields
    > to flush if we can but can tolerate loss if we dont)
    So, just to be sure - we're fine with atime being lost due to crashes,
    errors, etc?

    I don't see why not, but I figure it'd be good to make sure there's some
    concensus on that.

    If that is in fact the case, OCFS2 could do the same thing as XFS and
    update disk only when we're going there for some other reason. The only
    thing that we would have to add on top of that is a disk write when we're
    dropping a cluster lock and the inode is still 'atime-dirty'.

    Mark Fasheh
    Senior Software Developer, Oracle
    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: 2006-08-06 00:29    [W:0.021 / U:8.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site