[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2EOzA5grh5qjZghAs0Y4DbcGBhmdfqp=u1S_4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:32:20 -0700
From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:20 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Um, can't you? You can't *store* timestamps which are more precise, but
> they can be in cache can't they?
No. That is how Linux used to work, and it caused many problems,
which is why the current_fs_time() function was invented.
> And since you're not going to drop it from cache and bring it back in
> again within 4ms, that ought to suffice?
Not the problem. As usual, the problem is out-of-order timestamps:
1) Modify file A
2) Modify file B
3) File B's inode gets evicted, truncating its timestamp to disk resolution
4) Call stat() on B, bringing it back in with truncated resolution
And boom, B appears to be OLDER than A. Which is not allowed.
This is exactly what happened when Linux first added sub-second
timestamps to the generic VFS layer. Many complaints about "make"
rebuilding files unecessarily, among other things. Eventually it got
fixed by the introduction of current_fs_time().
- Pat
--
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