From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442D7C6377C for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:08:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7AA610D0 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:08:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241192AbhGTB0m (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jul 2021 21:26:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62947 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1355075AbhGSX1S (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:27:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1B4E0E59; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:07:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=yrVbkrxwLhQZus8/Bf0xUo2AikbNU3Gv4RaUR4 sHpD0=; b=YwTaUWTjlqb2DXHMajKzar9/wJz9Ahl3i8wh4m/z7+ACVoK5gGG6GA zfJSWvxpHUZE69IUzSZhJbjeqhDN62Asf+M6MA7qVFL7OFqDKAkFKcFukHKfMdLe WQn7kzOIIpgEfhbg++pAZfXpnKL9WnQ0Dg/ClotuDQQ1DJN5Ovfc4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610FAE0E58; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:07:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.3.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9103E0E57; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:07:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Sun Chao via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Martin Fick , Son Luong Ngoc , Sun Chao <16657101987@163.com>, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] packfile: freshen the mtime of packfile by configuration References: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 17:07:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Taylor Blau's message of "Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:51:06 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 877B722A-E8EE-11EB-BF3A-8B3BC6D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > Hmm. I'm still quite unconvinced that we should be taking this direction > without better motivation. We talked about your assumption that NFS > seems to be invalidating the block cache when updating the inodes that > point at those blocks, but I don't recall seeing further evidence. Me neither. Not touching the pack and not updating the "most recently used" time of individual objects smells like a recipe for repository corruption. > My opinion is that it is not, and that the bizarre caching behavior you > are seeing is out of Git's control.