On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 17:27, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 17:07 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 16:23, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> The context for this is generally a write or other change to an inode,
> so I too am hoping the overhead won't be too bad. It does take great
> pains to avoid changing the ctime_floor value whenever possible.
Ok, I see. Have you considered hooking directly into the code
in kernel/time/timekeeping.c then?
Since the coarse time is backed by the timekeeper that itself
is a cache of the current time, this would potentially avoid
some duplication:
- whenever the tk_core code gets updated, you can update
the ctime_floor along with it, or integrate ctime_floor
itself into the timekeeper
- you can use the same sequence count logic, either with the
same &tk_core.seq or using a separate counter for the
ctime updates
Arnd
