> On 16 марта 2014 г., at 16:24, Andreas Rohner <andreas.rohner@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2014-03-16 14:00, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >> >>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Andreas Rohner wrote: >>> >>> This patch adds an additional timestamp to the segment usage >>> information that indicates the last time the usage information was >>> changed. So su_lastmod indicates the last time the segment itself was >>> modified and su_lastdec indicates the last time the usage information >>> itself was changed. >> >> What will we have if user changes time? >> What sequence will we have after such "malicious" action? >> Did you test such situation? > > The timestamp is just a hint for the userspace GC. If the hint is wrong > the result would be that the GC is less efficient for a while. After a > while it would go back to normal. You have the same problem with the > already existing su_lastmod timestamp. > But I worry about such thing. Previously, we had complains of users about different issues with timestamp policy of GC. And I had hope that namely new GC policies can resolve such GC disadvantage. So, what have we again? The same issue of GC? Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
