On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 11:58 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > 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. the vfs shouldn't consider it clean, it should consider it "atime-only dirty".. with that many of the vfs interaction issues ought to go away - 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
