Re: [PATCH 3/4] vfs: don't let the dirty time inodes get more than a day stale

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>]

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?  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.

Or do you mean trying to abuse the dirtied_when field in some way?

                                   - Ted