Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What we could do is to make "relatime" updates a bit smarter.
>
> A bit smarter would be:
>
> - update atime if the old atime is <= than mtime/ctime
>
> Logic: things like mailers can care about whether some
> new state has
> been read or not. This is the current relatime.
>
> - update atime if the old atime is more than X seconds
> in the past (defaulting to one day or something)
>
> Logic: things like tmpwatch and backup
> software may want to remove
> stuff that hasn't been touched in a long time, but they
> sure don't care about "exact" atime.
Relatime seems to be wasteful of both IO resources _and_ CPU cycles.
Instead of performing a single IO operation (as atime does), relatime
performs at least three IO operations and three CPU-dependent
operations:
1) a read IO operation to find out the old atime
2) a read IO operation to find out the old ctime
3) a read IO operation to find out the old mtime
4) Comparison of "old atime is <= than mtime/ctime"
5) Find out current time
6) Comparison of "current time minus old atime is > X"
People are going to wonder why all of the sudden everything is running
so slow due to atimes being updated after a long break.
I suggest treating atime as if it were a subsystem that is scheduled
for an overhaul - there have been plenty of those in the past. Give
users/distros a config option to disable atime, but default this
option in favor of atime for a couple of kernel release cycles. Print
a line in dmesg that states something like:
"Warning: Atime will be disabled by default in future kernel versions,
but you will still be able to turn it on when configuring the kernel."
This should give a heads-up to the 0.001% of people who still use
atime so that they know to customize this option or start using modern
file-monitoring techniques like inotify.
Vlad
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
