> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:23, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Eric Wong <e...@80x24.org> writes:
>> We probably should be using O_NOATIME for all O_RDONLY cases
>> to get the last bit of performance out (especially since
>> non-modern-Linux systems probably still lack relatime).
> No, please do not go there.
> The user can read from a file in a working tree using "less",
> "grep", etc., and they all update the atime, so should "git grep".
> We do not use atime ourselves on these files but we should let
> outside tools rely on the validity of atime (e.g. "what are the
> files that were looked at yesterday?").
> If you grep for noatime in our current codebase, you'd notice that
> we use it only for files in objects/ hierarchy, and that makes very
> good sense.  These files are what we create for our _sole_ use and
> no other tools can peek at them and expect to get any useful
> information out of them (we hear from time to time that virus
> scanners leaving open file descriptors on them causing trouble, but
> that is an example of a useless access), and that makes a file in
> objects/ hierarchy a fair game for noatime optimization.

How do we deal with read-cache:ce_compare_data, though?

By your definition above we shouldn't use NOATIME since the read file
is not in objects/. However, the file read is not something the user
explicitly triggers. The read is part of the Git internal "clean"

What would you suggest? Should I open the file with or without NOATIME?


Reply via email to