On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 08:05:06PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:59:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

quoted

So the intended semantics is:
1) fsync / sync / freeze / unmount will write the timestamp updates even
   with lazytime. So unless crash happens, timestamps are guaranteed to be
   consistent. Also sync / fsync guarantees all changes to get to disk.
2) We periodically write back timestamps (once per 24 hours) to avoid too
   big timestamp inconsistencies in case of crash.

Ok, so it's supposed to be a delayed timestamp update mechanism
without any specific ordering guarantees, not an opportunistic
timestamp update mechanism.

There is an optimization which ext4 has which will update related
timestamps when we write an inode table block, which is
"opportunistic", but there is no guarantee that this will happen.

XFS used to do that, too, before we removed all that hackery when we
moved to logging timestamp updates unconditionally a few years ago.
I'm going to have to re-instate some of that code for lazytime, I
think.

This is purely optional; other file systems don't have to do this, but
it can be a win in that if related inodes are in the same 4k block,
and we need to update, say, the index file one because we are changing
i_size, but we were also doing non-allocating writes to the data file,
then we might as well write out the timestamps for the data file at
the same time, since this is "free".

*nod*. Explicit, optimised clustered inode writeback (rather than
purely opportunistic clustering via delayed buffer writeback) was
added to XFS way back in early 1999. :)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org