[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:44:52 -0400
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8
Alan Cox wrote:
>> However, relatime has the POSIX behavior without the overhead. Therefore
>
> No. relatime has approximately SuS behaviour. Its not the same as
> "correct" behaviour.
>
Actually correct, but in terms of what can or does break, relatime seems
a lot closer than noatime, I can't (personally) come up with any
scenario where real applications would see something which would change
behavior adversely.
Making noatime a default in the kernel requiring a boot option to
restore current behavior seems to be a turn toward the "it doesn't
really work right but it's *fast*" model. If vendors wanted noatime they
are smart enough to enable it. Now with relatime giving most of the
benefits and few (of any) of the side effects, I would expect a change.
By all means relatime by default in FC8, but not noatime, and let those
who find some measurable benefit from noatime use it.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists