Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Right, I think that we probably have to give up ext3 as a lost cause.
> But perhaps we could get away with a hack like this on filesystems that
> can store nanoseconds.

I do not think so.

The problem with "increment mtime by a nanosecond when necessary" is
that timestamps can wind up out of order.  As in:

1) Do a bunch of operations on file A
2) Do one operation on file B

Imagine each operation on A incrementing its timestamp by a nanosecond
"just because".  If all of these operations happen in less than 4 ms,
you can wind up with the timestamp on B being EARLIER than the
timestamp on A.  That is a big no-no (think "make" or anything else
relying on timestamps for relative times).

If you can prove that the last modification on B happens after the
last modification on A, then it is very bad for the mtime on B to be
earlier than the mtime on A.  I guarantee that will break things in
the real world.

As you say, high-resolution timestamps "will extend the useful
lifetime of NFSv3 by quite a bit".  They are also a good idea in
principle, IMO.  Correctness is almost always more important than
performance.

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