Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030228AbWHEQ6u (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Aug 2006 12:58:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030274AbWHEQ6u (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Aug 2006 12:58:50 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:25223 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030228AbWHEQ6t (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Aug 2006 12:58:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime From: Dave Kleikamp To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Valerie Henson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Akkana Peck , Mark Fasheh , Jesse Barnes , Arjan van de Ven , Chris Wedgwood , jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu, Al Viro In-Reply-To: <20060805122537.GA23239@lst.de> References: <20060803063622.GB8631@goober> <20060805122537.GA23239@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:58:43 -0500 Message-Id: <1154797123.12108.6.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1447 Lines: 31 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. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center - 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/