Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization

From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:54:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1490810071.2678.6.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170329111507.GA18467@quack2.suse.cz>

On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > - It's durable; the above comparison still works if there were reboots
> > > > >   between the two i_version checks.
> > > > > 	- I don't know how realistic this is--we may need to figure out
> > > > > 	  if there's a weaker guarantee that's still useful.  Do
> > > > > 	  filesystems actually make ctime/mtime/i_version changes
> > > > > 	  atomically with the changes that caused them?  What if a
> > > > > 	  change attribute is exposed to an NFS client but doesn't make
> > > > > 	  it to disk, and then that value is reused after reboot?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, there could be atomicity there. If we bump i_version, we'll mark
> > > > the inode dirty and I think that will end up with the new i_version at
> > > > least being journalled before __mark_inode_dirty returns.
> > > 
> > > So you think the filesystem can provide the atomicity?  In more detail:
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry, I hit send too quickly. That should have read:
> > 
> > "Yeah, there could be atomicity issues there."
> > 
> > I think providing that level of atomicity may be difficult, though
> > maybe there's some way to make the querying of i_version block until
> > the inode update has been journalled?
> 
> Just to complement what Dave said from ext4 side - similarly as with XFS
> ext4 doesn't guarantee atomicity unless fsync() has completed on the file.
> Until that you can see arbitrary combination of data & i_version after the
> crash. We do take care to keep data and metadata in sync only when there
> are security implications to that (like exposing uninitialized disk blocks)
> and if not, we are as lazy as we can to improve performance...
> 
> 

Yeah, I think what we'll have to do here is ensure that those
filesystems do an fsync prior to reporting the i_version getattr
codepath. It's not pretty, but I don't see a real alternative.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>