On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:45:08PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:53:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:59:23PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > Guarantee that the on-disk timestamps will be no more than 24 hours > > > stale. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > > > If we put these inodes on the dirty inode list with at writeback > > time of 24 hours, this is completely unnecessary. > > What do you mean by "a writeback time of 24 hours"? Do you mean > creating a new field in the inode which specifies when the writeback > should happen? No. > I still worry about the dirty inode list getting > somewhat long large in the strictatime && lazytime case, and the inode > bloat nazi's coming after us for adding a new field to struct inode > structure. Use another pure inode time dirty list, and move the inode to the existing dirty list when it gets marked I_DIRTY. > Or do you mean trying to abuse the dirtied_when field in some way? No abuse necessary at all. Just a different inode_dirtied_after() check is requires if the inode is on the time dirty list in move_expired_inodes(). Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
