[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081228213636.GB2002@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:36:36 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: ?ric Piel <E.A.B.Piel@...elft.nl>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, resend] relatime: Let relatime update atime at least once per day
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:24:55PM +0100, ?ric Piel wrote:
> Yes, it might bring important drawbacks: performance-wise, relatime will
> become more like atime, making it much less useful. There is also a
> significant number of desktop computers that are turned on once a day,
> the boot time may get hindered by those additional writes.
Huh? Nobody's ever claimed that atime writes cost a significant amount
of performance. The problem that relatime is designed to solve is
*spin-up* when a file is accessed.
> Actually, you are changing relatime from a boolean condition (maximum
> one additional write per write) to a atime with a coarse grain (maximum
> one additional write per day). Today you found a use case that needs a
> precision of one day. Tomorrow, someone else will find a use case that
> needs a precision of one hour. So maybe what is actually needed is a
> third option, a "grainatime" option where you can change the precision
> of the atime.
You're really over-thinking this.
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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