[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141125234851.GB9561@dastard>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:48:51 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] vfs: don't let the dirty time inodes get more than a
day stale
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:45:08PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 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 <tytso@....edu>
> >
> > 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?
No.
> 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.
Use another pure inode time dirty list, and move the inode to the
existing dirty list when it gets marked I_DIRTY.
> Or do you mean trying to abuse the dirtied_when field in some way?
No abuse necessary at all. Just a different inode_dirtied_after()
check is requires if the inode is on the time dirty list in
move_expired_inodes().
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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