2008/1/18, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>:
quoted text
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> > What I'm saying is that the times could be left un-updated for a long
> > time if program doesn't do munmap() or msync(MS_SYNC) for a long time.
>
> Sure.
>
> But in those circumstances, the programmer cannot depend on the mtime
> *anyway* (because there is no synchronization), so what's the downside?
>
> Let's face it, there's exactly three possible solutions:
>
>  - the insane one: trap EVERY SINGLE instruction that does a write to the
>    page, and update mtime each and every time.
>
>    This one is so obviously STUPID that it's not even worth discussing
>    further, except to say that "yes, there is an 'exact' algorithm, but
>    no, we are never EVER going to use it".
>
>  - the non-exact solutions that don't give you mtime updates every time
>    a write to the page happens, but give *some* guarantees for things that
>    will update it.
>
>    This is the one I think we can do, and the only things a programmer can
>    impact using it is "msync()" and "munmap()", since no other operations
>    really have any thing to do with it in a programmer-visible way (ie a
>    normal "sync" operation may happen in the background and has no
>    progam-relevant timing information)
>
>    Other things *may* or may not update mtime (some filesystems - take
>    most networked one as an example - will *always* update mtime on the
>    server on writeback, so we cannot ever guarantee that nothing but
>    msync/munmap does so), but at least we'll have a minimum set of things
>    that people can depend on.
>
>  - the "we don't care at all solutions".
>
>    mmap(MAP_WRITE) doesn't really update times reliably after the write
>    has happened (but might do it *before* - maybe the mmap() itself does).
>
> Those are the three choices, I think. We currently approximate #3. We
> *can* do #2 (and there are various flavors of it). And even *aiming* for
> #1 is totally insane and stupid.

The current solution doesn't hit the performance at all when compared to
the competitor POSIX-compliant systems. It is faster and does even more
than the POSIX standard requires.

Please see the test results I've sent into the thread "-v6 0/2":

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/18/447

I guess, the current solution is ready to use.

quoted text
>
>                         Linus
>
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/