On 01/03/2011 06:27 PM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:58 +0800, yangsheng wrote:
Signed-off-by: sickamd@xxxxxxxxx
---
fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ 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)< 0)
+ 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)
I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
future for exactly this reason,
I agreed in theory. Anyway, a two-way update may cause shake in some
case. Like a cluster environment with time gap between cluster members.
But future atime also is a trouble things i think. Of course, I hope a
clever patch to fix them all.
Thanks
yangsheng
--
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
