On 06/10/2015 06:25 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 18:10 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On 06/10/2015 05:21 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 11:16 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
Therefore, I introduced a new option named as force_atime in ubifs.
That's a ubifs-dependent opiton and it works as a main switch, in
a higher level compared with atime and noatime. If force_atime, we
support the atime-related flags. Otherwise, we don't care about all of
them in flags and don't support atime anyway.
How bad is it to just default to relatime like other file-systems do,
comparing to what we have now?
Ha, yes, that's a problem. I read it from wiki that the author think
it's bad for ubifs. But I did not do a measure about it.
Since I am one of the authors, I think we were mostly looking at the
full atime support, and did not really look at relatime.
In theory, yes, lots of writing would damage the flash. So I think
just make it optional to user is a flexible way to do it. Even we
want to make the default to relatime, I think it's better to keep
the compatibility for a period and provide a force_atime to user.
When lots of users said "okey, we are mostly choosing force_atime in our
use cases.". I believe that's a safe way to make ubifs supporting
atime by default.
Let me make a step back. So what I hear is that the problem is that you
cannot find the original mount options. For example, when you see the
MNT_RELATIME flag, you do not know whether it was specified by the user
or it was VFS adding this flag. Is this correct?
If it is correct, then I think we need to look at a VFS-level solution.
If the above is the only problem, then I'd say that introducing a custom
"force_atime" is a work-around for VFS limitations.
That's correct. Yes, I really want to solve it in vfs at first. But
later, just submited this patch as a Problem-solved for us. Because I
thought the force_atime would disappear when we decide to support
atime by default in future.
Besides a change in VFS would cause more discussion, after a trade-off,
I submitted this patch for ubifs. :)
But yes, there is really, at leat, a TODO entry for VFS in this
scenario I think. If you think we need to do it rather than a
work-around as what this patch did. I will think a better way
in VFS for that. :)
Thanx
Yang
Artem.
.
--
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
