[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2JgVVRsiBzTuUACwmCoVFkkJbF9zGfk4Yu0KzzRV=81Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:38:29 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Andiry Xu <jix024@....ucsd.edu>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Rudoff, Andy" <andy.rudoff@...el.com>, coughlan@...hat.com,
Steven Swanson <swanson@...ucsd.edu>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
swhiteho@...hat.com, miklos@...redi.hu,
Jian Xu <andiry.xu@...il.com>, Andiry Xu <jix024@...ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 03/83] Add super.h.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Andiry Xu <jix024@....ucsd.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Andiry Xu <jix024@....ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> Superblock mtime is not a big problem as it is updated rarely. 64-bit
> seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds make the inode and log entry bigger,
> and updating file->atime cannot be done with a single 64bit update.
> That may be annoying and needs to use journaling.
If this is a big concern, you could use a format similar to what ext4 has:
30 bits of nanoseconds, and 34 bits of seconds, where the upper two
bits count the epoch. That gives you a time range from years 1902 to
2446.
You could also have a resolution of less than a nanosecond. Note
that today, the file time stamps generated by the kernel are in
jiffies resolution, so at best one millisecond. However, most modern
file systems go with the 64+32 bit timestamps because it's not all
that expensive.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists