On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 14:25 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 11:36:22PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > > (Corrected Chris Wedgwood's name and email.) > > > > My friend Akkana followed my advice to use noatime on one of her > > machines, but discovered that mutt was unusable because it always > > thought that new messages had arrived since the last time it had > > checked a folder (mbox format). I thought this was a bummer, so I > > wrote a "relative lazy atime" patch which only updates the atime if > > the old atime was less than the ctime or mtime. This is not the same > > as the lazy atime patch of yore[1], which maintained a list of inodes > > with dirty atimes and wrote them out on unmount. > > Another idea, similar to how atime updates work in xfs currently might > be interesting: Always update atime in core, but don't start a > transaction just for it - instead only flush it when you'd do it anyway, > that is another transaction or evicting the inode. Hmm. That adds a cost to evicting what the vfs considers a clean inode. It seems wrong, but if that's what xfs does, it must not be a problem. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
