[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JFwnQ-0001FB-2c@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:22:32 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, peterz@...radead.org, salikhmetov@...il.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, jakob@...hought.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, valdis.kletnieks@...edu,
riel@...hat.com, ksm@...dk, staubach@...hat.com,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
protasnb@...il.com, r.e.wolff@...wizard.nl,
hidave.darkstar@...il.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v6 2/2] Updating ctime and mtime for memory-mapped
files
> >
> > But then background writeout, sync(2), etc, wouldn't update the times.
>
> Sure it would, but only when doing the final unmap.
>
> Did you miss the "on unmap and msync" part?
No :)
What I'm saying is that the times could be left un-updated for a long
time if program doesn't do munmap() or msync(MS_SYNC) for a long time.
If program has this pattern:
mmap()
write to map
msync(MS_ASYNC)
sleep(long)
write to map
msync(MS_ASYNC)
sleep(long)
...
Then we'd never see time updates (until the program exits, but that
could be years).
Maybe this doesn't matter, I'm just saying this is a disadvantage
compared to the "update on first dirtying" approach, which would
ensure, that times are updated at least once per 30s.
Miklos
--
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