Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965179AbXHHUbQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:31:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965242AbXHHUau (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:30:50 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:59250 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965231AbXHHUat (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:30:49 -0400 Message-ID: <46BA2834.3080507@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:31:48 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Garzik CC: Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , J??rn Engel , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , miklos@szeredi.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, dgc@sgi.com, tomoki.sekiyama.qu@hitachi.com, nikita@clusterfs.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, yingchao.zhou@gmail.com, richard@rsk.demon.co.uk, david@lang.hm Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 References: <20070804191205.GA24723@lazybastard.org> <20070804192130.GA25346@elte.hu> <20070804211156.5f600d80@the-village.bc.nu> <20070804202830.GA4538@elte.hu> <20070804210351.GA9784@elte.hu> <20070804225121.5c7b66e0@the-village.bc.nu> <20070805073709.GA6325@elte.hu> <20070805134328.1a4474dd@the-village.bc.nu> <20070805125433.GA22060@elte.hu> <20070805143708.279f51f8@the-village.bc.nu> <20070805180826.GD3244@elte.hu> <46BA09CC.7070007@tmr.com> <46BA1C08.4050904@garzik.org> In-Reply-To: <46BA1C08.4050904@garzik.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1738 Lines: 37 Jeff Garzik wrote: > Bill Davidsen wrote: >> Being standards compliant is not an argument it's a design goal, a >> requirement. Standards compliance is like pregant, you are or you're > > Linux history says different. There was always the "final 1%" of > compliance that required silliness we really did not want to bother with. This is not 1%, this is a user-visible change in behavior, relative to all previous Linux versions. There has been a way for ages to trade performance for standards for users or distributions, and standards have been chosen. Given that there is now a way to get virtually all of the performance without giving up atime completely, why the sudden attempt to change to a less satisfactory default? I could understand a push to quickly get relatime with a few enhancements (the functionality if not the exact code) into distributions, even as a default, but forcing user or distribution changes just to retain the same dehavior doesn't seem reasonable. It assumes that vendors and users are so stupid they can't understand why benchmark results and more important than standards. People who run servers are smart enough to decide if their application will run as expected without atime. People have lived with this compromise for a very long time, and it seems that a far more balanced solution will be in the kernel soon. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 - 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/