From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch] implement smarter atime updates support From: Arjan van de Ven In-Reply-To: <20070805192226.GA20234@elte.hu> References: <20070804163733.GA31001@elte.hu> <46B4C0A8.1000902@garzik.org> <20070805102021.GA4246@unthought.net> <46B5A996.5060006@garzik.org> <20070805105850.GC4246@unthought.net> <20070805124648.GA21173@elte.hu> <20070805190928.GA17433@elte.hu> <20070805192226.GA20234@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:53:02 -0700 Message-Id: <1186343582.25667.3.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jakob Oestergaard , Jeff Garzik , miklos@szeredi.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, dgc@sgi.com, tomoki.sekiyama.qu@hitachi.com, Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , nikita@clusterfs.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, yingchao.zhou@gmail.com, richard@rsk.demon.co.uk, david@lang.hm List-ID: > +static int relatime_need_update(struct inode *inode, struct timespec now) > +{ > + /* > + * Is mtime younger than atime? If yes, update atime: > + */ > + if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_mtime, &inode->i_atime) >= 0) > + return 1; > + /* > + * Is ctime younger than atime? If yes, update atime: > + */ > + if (timespec_compare(&inode->i_ctime, &inode->i_atime) >= 0) > + return 1; > + > + /* > + * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes, > + * update atime: > + */ > + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60) > + return 1; you might want to add /* * if the inode is dirty already, do the atime update since * we'll be doing the disk IO anyway to clean the inode. */ if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) return 1; -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org