Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:05:35 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: POSIX compliance and time updates Message-ID: <199512082005.NAA02039@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199512081933.GAA09072@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Dec 9, 95 06:33:07 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >should be: > > > error = VOP_UPDATE(vp, &atimeval, &mtimeval, 0); > > I've been running with this change for years. It is just an > optimization and is only wrong if the system crashes. My comment about > it says that it is stupid to update times synchronously but not update > ids and permissions synchronously. I actually have someone here in the wings who is willing to get into a flame war on POSIX "should/shall/may" arguing that POSIX does not require an immediate update here by virtue of the exact wording. The worst thing that can happen is you have to rebuild something unnecessarily in a make because the date didn't roll forward. > >This should significantly increase performance on the bogus create/delete > >benchmark. > > The performance is still low. 100 creat/unlink's take > > 5.01 real 0.01 user 0.14 sys > > here. They should take about 0.15 real (33 times faster). "should"? You mean "do on Linux", not "should", right? 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512082005.NAA02039>