From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] vfs: don't let the dirty time inodes get more than a day stale Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:45:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20141125044508.GG31339@thunk.org> References: <1416599964-21892-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1416599964-21892-4-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20141125015332.GE27262@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ext4 Developers List , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141125015332.GE27262@dastard> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:53:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:59:23PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > Guarantee that the on-disk timestamps will be no more than 24 hours > > stale. > > > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o > > If we put these inodes on the dirty inode list with at writeback > time of 24 hours, this is completely unnecessary. What do you mean by "a writeback time of 24 hours"? Do you mean creating a new field in the inode which specifies when the writeback should happen? I still worry about the dirty inode list getting somewhat long large in the strictatime && lazytime case, and the inode bloat nazi's coming after us for adding a new field to struct inode structure. Or do you mean trying to abuse the dirtied_when field in some way? - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs