Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.

From: Andreas Dilger
Date: Tue Jan 04 2011 - 14:13:44 EST

On 2011-01-04, at 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:56:58 +0800, yangsheng said:
>> If atime has been wrong set to future, then it cannot
>> be updated back to current time.
>> +#define RELATIME_MARGIN (24 * 60 * 60)
> Nice patch overall. Should this be a #define, or a CONFIG_ variable,
> or a tweakable /proc/sys/fs variable? Or am I senile and we thrashed
> all this out once before when the relatime code landed?

I recall the consensus was that a /proc tunable was "too much" for the initial patch. An atime update interval of 1 day is sufficient for most applications, since they run daily to do file access scanning. The #define was added because I dislike having multiple hard-coded values in any code.

I haven't heard of any complaints about the relatime update frequency, except for this "atime in the future" problem, so until that happens we may as well leave it as-is.

Cheers, Andreas

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at