On Wed, 2026-09-16 at 08:05 +0000, Adrian Freihofer via lists.openembedded.org 
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thank you for the discussion in the patch review meeting. After
> discussing this further with Michael, I’m providing a summary of the
> technical details and the various perspectives shared:
> 
>  * Release Timing: Given how close we are to the next release, we have
>    decided to put this patch series on hold. Modifying these crucial
>    lines of code carries a risk that is not feasible at this stage. We
>    will revisit the implementation and timing immediately after the
>    release.
>  * Architectural Goal & Cache Management: Our primary objective is to
>    move toward standard mtime and atime behavior. Currently, non-
>    standard usage makes it difficult for different environments to
>    interact with the cache as expected. Adhering to standard behavior
>    allows for better cache management, as it for example provides the
>    necessary telemetry to identify objects that are "old" but still
>    actively "in use."
>  * We will have a look a the sstate-cache-management.py script and
>    check if the script can be extended with some prune features which
>    we need on our infrastructure.
> 
> Follow-up Discussion: We also recognize the specific performance
> challenges with Kubernetes CephFS (particularly the server-side
> propagation of atime changes). While this is a key driver for these
> improvements, we will address the specific CephFS optimizations and
> related performance impacts in a follow-up discussion and dedicated
> discussion to keep the current architectural changes focused.

Thanks for the summary Adrian.

Just to expand on a couple of details:

* I did recently change some of this code with the intention of
  making it consistent with atime, mtime, file extensions and 
  symlinks. The previous version was a horrible mix of 
  different behaviours and sstate cache management was struggling as 
  a result. This was likely a cause of some intermittent AB failures.
* Whilst this may improve cephfs, we're worried about how this 
  may interact with zfs+NFS or ext*+NFS and the possibility of
  noatime, limited (re)write access and other mount options.

We do limit the areas we interact with shared data usage but this is
one of the areas we do and we need to be careful about changes here as
a result.

Cheers,

Richard


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#245937): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/245937
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/121194864/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to