From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Dec  7 12:51:53 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA18867
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA18839
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA05518 for current@freebsd.org; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 13:50:12 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199512072050.NAA05518@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: POSIX compliance and time updates
To: current@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 13:50:12 -0700 (MST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

It seems pretty obvious that the ufs_setattr() code in the file
/sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_vnops.c is bogusly requiring synchronous time
updates in the non-async case.

I believe that:

		error = VOP_UPDATE(vp, &atimeval, &mtimeval, 1);

should be:

		error = VOP_UPDATE(vp, &atimeval, &mtimeval, 0);

Resulting in a bdwrite() instead of a bwrite() in ffs_update() in the
file /sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_inode.c.

This should significantly increase performance on the bogus create/delete
benchmark.

Are there any dissenting opinions?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.