* [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.
@ 2011-01-04 8:56 yangsheng
2011-01-04 9:02 ` Andreas Schwab
2011-01-04 18:21 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: yangsheng @ 2011-01-04 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: adilger, linux-fsdevel, linux-ext4, swhiteho, yangsheng, sickadm
If atime has been wrong set to future, then it cannot
be updated back to current time.
CC: swhiteho@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: sickadm@gmail.com
Reviewed-by: adilger@dilger.ca
---
fs/inode.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index da85e56..9cf7375 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1446,6 +1446,8 @@ sector_t bmap(struct inode *inode, sector_t block)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(bmap);
+#define RELATIME_MARGIN (24 * 60 * 60)
+
/*
* With relative atime, only update atime if the previous atime is
* earlier than either the ctime or mtime or if at least a day has
@@ -1469,10 +1471,16 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
return 1;
/*
- * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
+ * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
+ * update atime:
+ */
+ if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < -RELATIME_MARGIN)
+ return 1;
+ /*
+ * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
* update atime:
*/
- if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
+ if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= RELATIME_MARGIN)
return 1;
/*
* Good, we can skip the atime update:
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.
2011-01-04 8:56 [PATCH resend] Update atime from future yangsheng
@ 2011-01-04 9:02 ` Andreas Schwab
2011-01-04 9:05 ` YangSheng
2011-01-04 18:21 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2011-01-04 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yangsheng
Cc: linux-kernel, adilger, linux-fsdevel, linux-ext4, swhiteho,
sickadm
yangsheng <sickamd@gmail.com> writes:
> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
Why did you change that comment?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.
2011-01-04 9:02 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2011-01-04 9:05 ` YangSheng
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: YangSheng @ 2011-01-04 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Schwab
Cc: linux-kernel, adilger, linux-fsdevel, linux-ext4, swhiteho,
sickadm
On 01/04/2011 05:02 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> yangsheng<sickamd@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
>> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
>>
> Why did you change that comment?
>
Sorry, It is a typo. I'll resent it.
> Andreas.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.
2011-01-04 8:56 [PATCH resend] Update atime from future yangsheng
2011-01-04 9:02 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2011-01-04 18:21 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-04 19:13 ` Andreas Dilger
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2011-01-04 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yangsheng
Cc: linux-kernel, adilger, linux-fsdevel, linux-ext4, swhiteho,
sickadm
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 383 bytes --]
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?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.
2011-01-04 18:21 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2011-01-04 19:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-01-04 20:31 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Dilger @ 2011-01-04 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valdis.Kletnieks
Cc: yangsheng, linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-ext4, swhiteho,
sickadm
On 2011-01-04, at 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.
2011-01-04 19:13 ` Andreas Dilger
@ 2011-01-04 20:31 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2011-01-04 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Dilger
Cc: yangsheng, linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-ext4, swhiteho,
sickadm
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:13:37 MST, Andreas Dilger said:
> On 2011-01-04, at 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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.
OK, in that case yangsheng's patch is probably good to go.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-04 20:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-01-04 8:56 [PATCH resend] Update atime from future yangsheng
2011-01-04 9:02 ` Andreas Schwab
2011-01-04 9:05 ` YangSheng
2011-01-04 18:21 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-04 19:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-01-04 20:31 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
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).