[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294928337.2401.28.camel@dolmen>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:18:57 +0000
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: yangsheng <sickamd@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update atime from future.
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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists