Signed-off-by: [email protected]
---
fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
return 1;
/*
- * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
+ * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
+ * update atime:
+ */
+ if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < 0)
+ return 1;
+ /*
+ * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
* update atime:
*/
if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
--
1.7.2.3
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:58:41 +0800 yangsheng <[email protected]> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: [email protected]
> ---
> fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
> return 1;
>
> /*
> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
> + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
> + * update atime:
> + */
> + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < 0)
> + return 1;
> + /*
> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
> * update atime:
> */
> if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
Why do you believe this change is needed? Did you observe some problem
which it fixes? If so, please fully describe that problem.
Hi,
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:58 +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> Signed-off-by: [email protected]
> ---
> fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
> return 1;
>
> /*
> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
> + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
> + * update atime:
> + */
> + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < 0)
> + return 1;
> + /*
> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
> * update atime:
> */
> if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
future for exactly this reason,
Steve.
On 01/03/2011 06:17 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:58:41 +0800 yangsheng<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: [email protected]
>> ---
>> fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
>> index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
>> --- a/fs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/inode.c
>> @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
>> return 1;
>>
>> /*
>> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
>> + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
>> + * update atime:
>> + */
>> + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec)< 0)
>> + return 1;
>> + /*
>> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
>> * update atime:
>> */
>> if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec)>= 24*60*60)
>>
> Why do you believe this change is needed? Did you observe some problem
> which it fixes? If so, please fully describe that problem.
>
If atime has been set to future(maybe cause by some accident system time
adjust or wrong set by touch). It cannot be update to reflect fact
access time before system time running over one day.
Thanks
On 2011-01-03, at 3:27, Steven Whitehouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:58 +0800, yangsheng wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: [email protected]
>> ---
>> fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
>> index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
>> --- a/fs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/inode.c
>> @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
>> return 1;
>>
>> /*
>> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
>> + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
>> + * update atime:
>> + */
>> + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < 0)
>> + return 1;
>> + /*
>> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
>> * update atime:
>> */
>> if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
>
> I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
> times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
> people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
> updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
> future for exactly this reason,
The problem that is seen is if a tarball has stored a bad atime, or someone fat-fingers a "touch" then the future atime will never be fixed. Before the relatime patch, the future atime would be updated back to the current time on the next access. One if our regression tests for Lustre caught this.
I wouldn't mind changing the relatime check so that it only updates the atime if it is more than one day in the future. That will avoid thrashing atime if the clocks are only slightly out of sync, but still allow fixing completely bogus atimes.
Cheers, Andreas
Hi,
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 09:27 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-01-03, at 3:27, Steven Whitehouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:58 +0800, yangsheng wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: [email protected]
> >> ---
> >> fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
> >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> >> index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
> >> --- a/fs/inode.c
> >> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> >> @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
> >> return 1;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
> >> + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
> >> + * update atime:
> >> + */
> >> + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < 0)
> >> + return 1;
> >> + /*
> >> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
> >> * update atime:
> >> */
> >> if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
> >
> > I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
> > times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
> > people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
> > updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
> > future for exactly this reason,
>
> The problem that is seen is if a tarball has stored a bad atime, or someone fat-fingers a "touch" then the future atime will never be fixed. Before the relatime patch, the future atime would be updated back to the current time on the next access. One if our regression tests for Lustre caught this.
>
> I wouldn't mind changing the relatime check so that it only updates the atime if it is more than one day in the future. That will avoid thrashing atime if the clocks are only slightly out of sync, but still allow fixing completely bogus atimes.
>
> Cheers, Andreas
That sounds like a good solution to me,
Steve.
On 01/03/2011 06:27 PM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:58 +0800, yangsheng wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: [email protected]
>> ---
>> fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
>> index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
>> --- a/fs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/inode.c
>> @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
>> return 1;
>>
>> /*
>> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
>> + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
>> + * update atime:
>> + */
>> + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec)< 0)
>> + return 1;
>> + /*
>> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
>> * update atime:
>> */
>> if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec)>= 24*60*60)
>>
> I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
> times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
> people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
> updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
> future for exactly this reason,
>
I agreed in theory. Anyway, a two-way update may cause shake in some
case. Like a cluster environment with time gap between cluster members.
But future atime also is a trouble things i think. Of course, I hope a
clever patch to fix them all.
Thanks
yangsheng
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 02:17:08AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:58:41 +0800 yangsheng <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
> > + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
You introduced a typo.
Roger.
--
** [email protected] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
** Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
Q: It doesn't work. A: Look buddy, doesn't work is an ambiguous statement.
Does it sit on the couch all day? Is it unemployed? Please be specific!
Define 'it' and what it isn't doing. --------- Adapted from lxrbot FAQ
return 1;
> > + /*
> > + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
> > * update atime:
> > */
> > if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
>
> I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
> times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
> people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
> updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
> future for exactly this reason,
Well, would these "update storms" really be a problem?
AFAICT they should be fairly non-frequent, and worst thing that can
happen is that you'll do as many updates as different time settings,
settling for the lowest value...?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Hi,
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 14:33 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> return 1;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
> > > * update atime:
> > > */
> > > if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
> >
> > I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
> > times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
> > people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
> > updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
> > future for exactly this reason,
>
> Well, would these "update storms" really be a problem?
>
> AFAICT they should be fairly non-frequent, and worst thing that can
> happen is that you'll do as many updates as different time settings,
> settling for the lowest value...?
> Pavel
Sorry for the delay in replying. It has been a problem in the past,
certainly. I think it is best to be cautious in this case, since that
way we can be sure it won't be a problem. The chosen solution looks ok
to me,
Steve.