[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] vfs: add a O_NOMTIME flag
Hi Zach,

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Zach Brown <> wrote:
> Add the O_NOMTIME flag which prevents mtime from being updated which can
> greatly reduce the IO overhead of writes to allocated and initialized
> regions of files.
> ceph servers can have loads where they perform O_DIRECT overwrites of
> allocated file data and then sync to make sure that the O_DIRECT writes
> are flushed from write caches. If the writes dirty the inode with mtime
> updates then the syncs also write out the metadata needed to track the
> inodes which can add significant iop and latency overhead.
> The ceph servers don't use mtime at all. They're using the local file
> system as a backing store and any backups would be driven by their upper
> level ceph metadata. For ceph, slow IO from mtime updates in the file
> system is as daft as if we had block devices slowing down IO for
> per-block write timestamps that file systems never use.
> In simple tests a O_DIRECT|O_NOMTIME overwriting write followed by a
> sync went from 2 serial write round trips to 1 in XFS and from 4 serial
> IO round trips to 1 in ext4.
> file_update_time() checks for O_NOMTIME and aborts the update if it's
> set, just like the current check for the in-kernel inode flag
> S_NOCMTIME. I didn't update any other mtime update sites. They could be
> added as we decide that it's appropriate to do so.
> I opted not to name the flag O_NOCMTIME because I didn't want the name
> to imply that ctime updates would be prevented for other inode changes
> like updating i_size in truncate. Not updating ctime is a side-effect
> of removing mtime updates when it's the only thing changing in the
> inode.
> The criteria for using O_NOMTIME is the same as for using O_NOATIME:
> owning the file or having the CAP_FOWNER capability. If we're not
> comfortable allowing owners to prevent mtime/ctime updates then we
> should add a tunable to allow O_NOMTIME. Maybe a mount option?

Just out of curiosity, if you need to modify the application anyway,
why wouldn't use of fdatasync() when flushing be able to offer a
similar performance boost?


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-07 00:41    [W:0.171 / U:1.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site