Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime
From: Bill Davidsen
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 13:23:46 EST
Valerie Henson wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 09:01:47PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 04:28:29PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
you can work around mutt's silly dependancy on atime by configuring it
with --enable-buffy-size. so far mutt is the only program i've discovered
which cares about atime.
For the shell, atime is the difference between 'you have mail' and 'you
have new mail'.
I still don't understand though, how much does this really buy us over
Lazy atime buys us a reduction in writes over nodiratime for any
workload which reads files, such as grep -r, a kernel compile, or
backup software. Do I misunderstand the question?
I mentioned lazy atime about a year ago, and have played with a patch to
do what I (personally) had in mind. My thinking is that for files the
atime is almost always used in one of two ways, as part of system
administration to see if a file is being used, and to sort files by
atime to identify recently accessed files, such as the one you read just
before the weekend.
So in that light, I proposed that a filesystem might have a mount option
such that atime was only updated when an open or close was done on the
file. In many cases this will both reduce inode writes and still
preserve information "current enough" to be useful, which is unavailable
with noatime. And since noatime is thought useful as a attribute, lazy
atime probably would be, as well.
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
Obscure bug of 2004: BASH BUFFER OVERFLOW - if bash is being run by a
normal user and is setuid root, with the "vi" line edit mode selected,
and the character set is "big5," an off-by-one errors occurs during
wildcard (glob) expansion.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/