Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:53:23PM +1100, Niv Sardi wrote:
>> Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > As I mentioned on IRC, Tim, the following patch fixes the above test
>> > case. It will make XFS behave like other filesystems w.r.t. atime,
>> > instead of defaulting to relatime-like behaviour. This will have
>> > performance impact unless ppl now add the relatime mount option.
>> I don't really like it, and don't think there is a real justification to
>> do it.
> You probably missed the context of that patch (which I mentioned on
> IRC to Tim).
Thank you for the refresh.
> That was that it is part of a larger patch set that tracks dirty state
> in the XFS inode radix tree. In that case, the ->dirty_inode callout
> is used to set a tag in the per-ag inode radix tree. I want to
> do it this way so there is a single place that the dirty tag
> is set, whether it is due to an unlogged change (XFS or VFS) or
> a transaction commit....
So, to refrase, you have a patchset, that will use that callback better,
and then we will not need the patch you actually sent ? why not wait for
that patchset, this is not exactly a critical bug…
> Also, if you read the referenced thread, Christoph made the comment
> that the VFS was not letting us know that the inode had been dirtied and
> that we really needed to know about that. The patch I sent isn't
> intended to do this, not as a fix for atime updates...
>> Why not only do:
> This doesn't avoid the performance problem - it simply shifts it to
> the reclaim code. Think about it - you traverse a million inodes
> stat()ing them all (the nightly backup). Instead of having the now
> dirty inodes written back as you go along, you wait until memory
> reclaim turfs them out to mark them dirty and then write them back.
> This means memory reclaim goes *much slower* because reclaiming the
> memory now has to wait for I/O to complete.
yep, I just read the code, do we have a way to know that we are
unmounting ? maybe the good way to do it is to only write atime on
unmount ? the call trace is:
So it doesn't look obvious to me, but sure there is a way to know if
we're in umount right ?
I'm concerned about the overhead, with your patch, that we'll be
writting things even if nothing has changed, not sure about how many
times ->dirty_inodes is called and such. I don't like the idea to slow
things down for everyone or force people to use realtime