Re: [PATCH v4] relatime: Make relatime smarter

From: Matthew Wilcox
Date: Tue Dec 02 2008 - 11:47:03 EST

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:10:25PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:40:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:18:09AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > The time between atime updates can be configured at boot
> > > > with the relatime_interval kernel argument, or at runtime through a sysctl.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't it be a per-mount value, with defaults coming from the sysctl?
> >
> > Perhaps a more sensible question would be "Why make it configurable at
> this is GNOME-mentality :-)

Yes, I frequently pal around with terrorists.

> > all?" What's wrong with hardcoding 24 hours? Or, to put it another
> > way, who wants to change it from 24 hours, and why?
> Why do you think that 24 hours is the right default value? Do you
> have any logical argument for this setting?

Once a day seems like a good value to me. It's a good human being
timescale and still cuts down the number of atime updates by a lot.

If somebody really cares, they could graph the relatime_update value
against number of writes performed in a given period and determine a
better cutoff. I can think of a hundred better ways to spend my time

Good job of not answering the question, by the way. Why _not_ 24 hours?

Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at