From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: set last write time = fsync ?
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:19:06 -0500
Message-ID: <524f69650803141219w53704411te1076358dd964a2f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <524f69650803122054t7b0f8285kd564271f8340378e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080313071046.1a9350a9@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
	 <524f69650803131932w91fa962i261a4c72a99db9d8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080314064017.6aa3e471@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
	 <524f69650803140916w1dde16a9ja9dc4e052edd77e5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080314125526.002fc2e5@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org,
	"Guenter Kukkukk" <linux@kukkukk.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
To: "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]:40183 "EHLO
	nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751892AbYCNTTK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:19:10 -0400
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g13so1671882nfb.21
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20080314125526.002fc2e5@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:16:41 -0500
>
> "Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't worry about flushing atime (anyone crazy enough to do that
>  > would pay a huge performance penalty).
>  > Access is usually checked on open right ... so once a file is open
>  > even if the file becomes read-only, the writes, even cached writes
>  > continue.
>  >
>
>  Ahh, you're correct. I've been doing a lot of NFS work lately and was
>  thinking stateless... :-)
>
>  That patch should be OK then, though I think if someone is purposefully
>  setting the atime we should take care not to clobber it. We're not
>  going to be going through this codepath on every atime update, are we?
>  Just on utimes() type calls, correct? If so, doing a flush on atime
>  updates might be reasonable as well...
>
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
>

I don't think we need to flush before setting (just) atime.
If the problem with timestamps is delayed writes getting written out
on close ... won't close update the atime anyway?


-- 
Thanks,

Steve