From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935360AbXHOSRS (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933032AbXHOSRC (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:02 -0400 Received: from wa-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.146.249]:45106 "EHLO wa-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932980AbXHOSRA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:00 -0400 X-IP: 90.157.192.193 From: david.balazic@hermes-softlab.com To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: per device dirty throttling -v8 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:16:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1187201812.396804.76130@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Aug 4, 10:15 pm, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 12:47 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > > Given the choice between only "atime" and "noatime" I'd agree with you. > > > Heck, I use it myself. But "relatime" seems to combine the best of both > > > worlds. It currently just suffers from mount not supporting it in any > > > relevant distro. > > > Well, we could make it the default for the kernel (possibly under a > > "fast-atime" config option), and then people can add "atime" or "noatime" > > as they wish, since mount has supported _those_ options for a long time. > > there is another trick possible (more involved though, Al will have to > jump in on that one I suspect): Have 2 types of "dirty inode" states; > one is the current dirty state (meaning the full range of ext3 > transactions etc) and "lighter" state of "atime-dirty"; which will not > do the background syncs or journal transactions (so if your machine > crashes, you lose the atime update) but it does keep atime for most > normal cases and keeps it standard compliant "except after a crash". Am I one of the few that thinks this would be a win-win solution ? :-( I guess it requires a lot more coding than relatime. Regards, David Balažic