From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Nanosecond fs timestamp support: sad
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:07:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1311271641.14555.114.camel@calx> (raw)
So it turns out that the resolution on filesystem timestamps is tied to
HZ rather than gettimeofday or similar, which means the resolution
improvement over seconds is.. not much. And not nearly as much as
advertised!
This means I can touch a file something like 70k times per second and
get only 300 distinct timestamps on my laptop. And only 100 distinct
timestamps on a typical distro server kernel.
Meanwhile, I can call gettimeofday 35M times per second and get ~1M
distinct responses.
Given that we can do gettimeofday three orders of magnitude faster than
we can do file transactions and it has four orders of magnitude better
resolution, shouldn't we be using it for filesystem time when
sb->s_time_gran is less than 1/HZ?
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
next reply other threads:[~2011-07-21 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-21 18:07 Matt Mackall [this message]
2011-07-22 6:01 ` Nanosecond fs timestamp support: sad Andi Kleen
2011-07-22 6:33 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 19:34 ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-22 20:59 ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-22 21:11 ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-22 21:47 ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-22 22:10 ` J. Bruce Fields
2011-07-22 22:31 ` J. Bruce Fields
2011-07-22 22:59 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-22 23:06 ` J. Bruce Fields
2011-07-22 23:49 ` J. Bruce Fields
2011-07-23 0:07 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-23 0:07 ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-23 1:38 ` J. Bruce Fields
2011-07-23 2:10 ` Trond Myklebust
2011-07-24 1:56 ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-29 19:49 ` Pavel Machek
2011-07-29 21:37 ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-23 1:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-07-25 15:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1311271641.14555.114.camel@calx \
--to=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).