On Friday, June 07, 2013 05:02:41 PM Colin Walters wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 22:14 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 20:42 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > >> Without further analysis, it doesn't tell us much. Does the code > > >> attempt > > >> to open a file O_NOATIME and then fall back to trying it without? > > > > > > It's likely: > > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680326 > > > > Is there any more rationale for the change available? > > http://lwn.net/Articles/244829/ > > > and the line in the sand between updatedb and thumbnail generation > > admittedly isn't all that clear.) > > Right. > > I guess we really want O_NOATIME_IF_POSSIBLE. Although I wonder if > there's any reason not to just silently ignore O_NOATIME if it's not > permitted, rather than force apps to double open(). Hmm...sounds like kernel change. But in the meantime, most of the offenders I see seem to have something to do with loading icons: name=/usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16/mimetypes/x-office-document.png 30 name=/etc/pki/tls/certs/localhost.crt 25 name=/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/firefox.png 11 name=/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps/firefox.png 10 name=/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps/firefox.png 9 name=/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/firefox.png 9 name=/usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16/actions/window-close.png 9 name=/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps/firefox.png 8 name=/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/firefox.png 8 name=/usr/share/icons/gnome/24x24/actions/go-up.png 7 name=/usr/share/icons/gnome/24x24/actions/go-down.png 7 name=/usr/share/icons/gnome/24x24/places/folder.png 7 I think we can assume root owns the icons which mean calls with NOATIME as a normal user session will fail. Maybe the call that opens the icon can be switched to a regular open? Thanks, Steve -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
