Hi, On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 14:33 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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, > > Well, would these "update storms" really be a problem? > > AFAICT they should be fairly non-frequent, and worst thing that can > happen is that you'll do as many updates as different time settings, > settling for the lowest value...? > Pavel Sorry for the delay in replying. It has been a problem in the past, certainly. I think it is best to be cautious in this case, since that way we can be sure it won't be a problem. The chosen solution looks ok to me, Steve. -- 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
