linux-kernel - Re: Noatime vs relatime

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1186757257.2670.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:47:37 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Vlad <vladc6@...oo.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Noatime vs relatime


On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 07:26 -0700, Vlad wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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

you've mistaken the concept of inode-in-memory... there is no IO
involved in any of these.


-
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/