--UKNXkkdQCYZ6W5l3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:14:06AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > however, i still don't like the idea to update atime in VOP_GETPAGES.
> > > it sounds like "update randomly" to me.
> > > if we want to update atime for mmap, i prefer to do it when a file is=
 mmap'ed.
> >=20
> > Why? Isn't mtime the time of last modification? Thus shouldn't it be=20
> > noted?
>=20
> you are confused between atime and mtime.

Yes, I was. But s/mtime/atime/ and /modification/accessed/ and it's the=20
same comment. I don't see how the fact we are using mmap really changes=20
the need for retaining the info; we are doing things to the file that the=
=20
description of these fields indicates we should note.

I realize we are being a bit fuzzy with things in that we do the updates=20
in GETPAGES(). If I'm understanding how this works, if a page is resident=
=20
and never gets pushed out, a process could keep using a page and we won't=
=20
see subsequent updates to atime (or mtime). But I think what we're doing=20
is better than just noting at mmap time.

Take care,

Bill

--UKNXkkdQCYZ6W5l3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCwJscWz+3JHUci9cRAkuHAJ4m0p4ku/pNjHMt0dfKzQA9lag2JgCfaypW
QeUJKYYGn/3Uamb3lkWHz94=
=McwL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--UKNXkkdQCYZ6W5l3--