[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CCBFC4.7070707@cateee.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:04 +0100
From: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@...eee.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ext3 IO latency measurements
Alan Cox wrote:
>> And what's the argument for not doing it in the kernel?
>>
>> The fact is, "atime" by default is just wrong.
>
> It probably was a wrong default - twenty years ago. Actually it may well
> have been a wrong default in Unix v6 8)
>
> However
> - atime behaviour is SuS required
so I propose an other mount option along to strictatime:
nowatime: it give the actual time as atime:
it is totally useless, but fast *and* POSIX compatible:
- no disk writes on accesses
- POSIX doesn't mandate the behaviour of other processes, so
we simulate that fs are scanned at every fs-tick.
- IMHO more programs break, but in this case only
the POSIX incompatible programs.
> - there are users with systems out there using atime and dependant on
> proper atime
This is the real problem.
ciao
cate
--
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