On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:23:20PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: [...] > Honestly, I think atime is one of the dumbest thing ever. But if one > must support it, then I think the following is a reasonable > compromise: > > -- If one is asked explicitly to set the atime by the user, then by > all means, go for it. > > -- Implicit atime updates made by the file system should NEVER trigger > an I/O, but merely update the in-memory copy of the inode. If, for > some reason, that inode is pushed out to disk for some other reason, > then by all means allow the atime field to be updated at the same > time.
It looks like a behaviour similar to "lazytime", recently introduced in Linux, after some years of experiments like "relatime". A short list of currently known behaviours (in different OS-es): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat_(system_call)#Criticism_of_atime Regards, -- Piotr 'aniou' Meyer
