[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1238153115.32119.15.camel@surfer>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:25:15 -0500
From: David Hagood <david.hagood@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
tytso@....edu, jack@...e.cz, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
arjan@...radead.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, npiggin@...e.de,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, drees76@...il.com, jesper@...gh.cc,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, roland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: relatime: update once per day patches (was: ext3 IO latency
measurements)
It seems to me that, rather than having the kernel maintain a timer (or
multiple timers, one per mount) itself, it would make sense to have
entries in /sys which, when written to, cause the file system layer to
flush all atime data to the mounted volume.
Something like
/sys
/sys/atime
/sys/atime/all
/sys/atime/<mountpoint id>/flush
where <mountpoint id> would be the name of the file system
(e.g. /sys/atime/usr/flush).
The only sticky part would be how to describe "/" in such a system.
(Better still would be a /sys/ system for each file system with the
various parameters (e.g. uid, journal) as entries + an entry for
flushing atime, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.)
That would truly let userspace set policy, while the kernel provides
mechanism. Thus, a script that depends upon atime being accurate could
simply tickle the sysfs entries as needed before running.
--
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