Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759288AbZCZUEU (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:04:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759990AbZCZUDx (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:03:53 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:54577 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761322AbZCZUDw (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:03:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:02:58 +0000 From: Matthew Garrett To: Alan Cox Cc: Linus Torvalds , Theodore Tso , Ingo Molnar , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Zijlstra , Nick Piggin , Jens Axboe , David Rees , Jesper Krogh , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Oleg Nesterov , Roland McGrath Subject: Re: ext3 IO latency measurements (was: Linux 2.6.29) Message-ID: <20090326200258.GA10313@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20090325235041.GA11024@duck.suse.cz> <20090326090630.GA9369@elte.hu> <20090326113705.GV32307@mit.edu> <20090326140312.GB14822@elte.hu> <20090326144707.GA6239@mit.edu> <20090326170714.GF6239@mit.edu> <20090326185900.166a1097@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090326185900.166a1097@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on vavatch.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1155 Lines: 27 On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:59:00PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > And what's the argument for not doing it in the kernel? > > > > The fact is, "atime" by default is just wrong. > > It probably was a wrong default - twenty years ago. Actually it may well > have been a wrong default in Unix v6 8) > > However > - atime behaviour is SuS required SuS says "An implementation may update fields that are marked for update immediately, or it may update such fields periodically. At an update point in time, any marked fields shall be set to the current time and the update marks shall be cleared" but doesn't appear to specify any kind of time limit. A conforming implementation could wait a century before performing the update. So while relatime doesn't conform, the practical difference is meaningless. You can't depend on atime being updated in a timely manner. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -- 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/