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: <1186757075.17619.32.camel@frg-rhel40-em64t-04>
Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:44:35 +0200
From:	Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>
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:
> 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"

As all [acm]times are stored in the same block (inode), I bet all this
is one single IO, plus some insignificant computation (3 comparisons
plus reading time is really smaller than one block IO).

	Xav


-
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/