From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ubifs: Introduce a mount option of force_atime. Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 10:02:31 +0200 Message-ID: <55769D97.3010602@nod.at> References: <1433758060-18614-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1433831809.28854.17.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: dedekind1@gmail.com, Dongsheng Yang Return-path: Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:65275 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752865AbbFIICm (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 04:02:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1433831809.28854.17.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 09.06.2015 um 08:36 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 18:07 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote: >> Currently, ubifs does not support access time anyway. I understand >> that there is a overhead to update inode in each access from user. >> >> But for the following two reasons, I think we can make it optional >> to user. >> >> (1). More and more flash storage in server are trying to use ubifs, >> it is not only for a device such as mobile phone any more, we want >> to use it in more and more generic way. Then we need to compete >> with some other main filesystems. From this point, access time is >> necessary to us, at least as a choice to user currently. >> >> (2). The default mount option about atime is relatime currently, >> it's much relaxy compared with strictatime. Then we don't update >> the inode in any accessing. So the overhead is not too much. >> It's really acceptable. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang >> --- >> It's a RESEND patch to cc to fsdevel as Artem suggested. >> I would rename force_atime to enable_atime in next version. > > Why do you need to introduce a custom "force_atime" option if there are > already standard "atime" and "noatime" mount option? I am fine with > adding atime support to UBIFS in general, and I'd expect this behavior > then. I think the rationale behind force_atime was "I know atime can hurt my NAND and I know what I'm doing". :-) Such that possible users think of the consequences. Thanks, //richard