> On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 21:58 +0800, yangsheng wrote:
>> Signed-off-by:
sickamd@gmail.com
>> ---
>> fs/inode.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
>> index da85e56..6c8effd 100644
>> --- a/fs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/inode.c
>> @@ -1469,7 +1469,13 @@ static int relatime_need_update(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct inode *inode,
>> return 1;
>>
>> /*
>> - * Is the previous atime value older than a day? If yes,
>> + * Is the previous atime value in future? If yes,
>> + * update atime:
>> + */
>> + if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) < 0)
>> + return 1;
>> + /*
>> + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes,
>> * update atime:
>> */
>> if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60)
>
> I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the
> times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend
> people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime
> updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the
> future for exactly this reason,
