Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must say I've been wondering about relatime a bit as well. Are there
> actually users who do really want atime, but not badly enough to want real
> atime?
Anyone using /var/spool/mail.
--
Programming is an art form that fights back.
Friß, Spammer: [EM
On 08/10/2007 05:10 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:26:46AM -0700, Vlad wrote:
...
"Warning: Atime will be disabled by default in future kernel versions,
but you will still be able to turn it on when configuring the kernel."
This should give a heads-up to the 0.001% of peop
Vlad wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
What we could do is to make "relatime" updates a bit smarter.
A bit smarter would be:
- update atime if the old atime is <= than mtime/ctime
Logic: things like mailers can care about whether some
new state has
been read or not. This is the current relatime.
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 07:26 -0700, Vlad wrote:
> Relatime seems to be wasteful of both IO resources _and_ CPU cycles.
> Instead of performing a single IO operation (as atime does), relatime
> performs at least three IO operations and three CPU-dependent
> operations:
>
> 1) a read IO operation to
This isn't a Linux problem, it's a *NIX convention.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Vlad writes:
> Relatime seems to be wasteful of both IO resources _and_ CPU cycles.
> Instead of performing a single IO operation (as atime does), relatime
> performs at least three IO operations and three CPU-dependent
> operations:
>
> 1) a read IO operation to find out the old atime
> 2) a read
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:26:46AM -0700, Vlad wrote:
...
> "Warning: Atime will be disabled by default in future kernel versions,
> but you will still be able to turn it on when configuring the kernel."
>
> This should give a heads-up to the 0.001% of people who still use
> atime so that they kn
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 07:26 -0700, Vlad wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Relatime seems to be wasteful of both IO resources _and_ CPU cycles.
> Instead of performing a single IO operation (as atime does), relatime
> performs at least three IO operations and three CPU-dependent
> operations:
>
>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What we could do is to make "relatime" updates a bit smarter.
>
> A bit smarter would be:
>
> - update atime if the old atime is <= than mtime/ctime
>
> Logic: things like mailers can care about whether some
> new state has
> been read or not. This is the current relatime
9 matches
Mail list logo
