From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754747AbbDQQjU (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:39:20 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55135 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753681AbbDQQjR (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:39:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:39:14 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Cc: Jan Kara , John Spray , Beata Michalska , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, hughd@google.com, lczerner@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, kmpark@infradead.org, Linux Filesystem Mailing List , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications Message-ID: <20150417163914.GA28058@quack.suse.cz> References: <1429082147-4151-1-git-send-email-b.michalska@samsung.com> <1429082147-4151-2-git-send-email-b.michalska@samsung.com> <20150417113110.GD3116@quack.suse.cz> <553104E5.2040704@samsung.com> <55310957.3070101@gmail.com> <55311DE2.9000901@redhat.com> <20150417154351.GA26736@quack.suse.cz> <55312FEA.3030905@redhat.com> <20150417162247.GB27500@quack.suse.cz> <553134D3.9040001@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <553134D3.9040001@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 17-04-15 12:29:07, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-04-17 12:22, Jan Kara wrote: > >On Fri 17-04-15 17:08:10, John Spray wrote: > >> > >>On 17/04/2015 16:43, Jan Kara wrote: > >>>On Fri 17-04-15 15:51:14, John Spray wrote: > >>>>On 17/04/2015 14:23, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>For some filesystems, it may make sense to differentiate between a > >>>>>generic warning and an error. For BTRFS and ZFS for example, if > >>>>>there is a csum error on a block, this will get automatically > >>>>>corrected in many configurations, and won't require anything like > >>>>>fsck to be run, but monitoring applications will still probably > >>>>>want to be notified. > >>>>Another key differentiation IMHO is between transient errors (like > >>>>server is unavailable in a distributed filesystem) that will block > >>>>the filesystem but might clear on their own, vs. permanent errors > >>>>like unreadable drives that definitely will not clear until the > >>>>administrator takes some action. It's usually a reasonable > >>>>approximation to call transient issues warnings, and permanent > >>>>issues errors. > >>> So you can have events like FS_UNAVAILABLE and FS_AVAILABLE but what use > >>>would this have? I wouldn't like the interface to be dumping ground for > >>>random crap - we have dmesg for that :). > >>In that case I'm confused -- why would ENOSPC be an appropriate use > >>of this interface if the mount being entirely blocked would be > >>inappropriate? Isn't being unable to service any I/O a more > >>fundamental and severe thing than being up and healthy but full? > >> > >>Were you intending the interface to be exclusively for data > >>integrity issues like checksum failures, rather than more general > >>events about a mount that userspace would probably like to know > >>about? > > Well, I'm not saying we cannot have those events for fs availability / > >inavailability. I'm just saying I'd like to see some use for that first. > >I don't want events to be added just because it's possible... > > > >For ENOSPC we have thin provisioned storage and the userspace deamon > >shuffling real storage underneath. So there I know the usecase. > > > The use-case that immediately comes to mind for me would be diskless > nodes with root-on-nfs needing to know if they can actually access > the root filesystem. Well, most apps will access the root file system regardless of what we send over netlink... So I don't see netlink events improving the situation there too much. You could try to use it for something like failover but even there I'm not too convinced - just doing some IO, waiting for timeout, and failing over if IO doesn't complete works just fine for that these days. That's why I was asking because I didn't see convincing usecase myself... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:39:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20150417163914.GA28058@quack.suse.cz> References: <1429082147-4151-1-git-send-email-b.michalska@samsung.com> <1429082147-4151-2-git-send-email-b.michalska@samsung.com> <20150417113110.GD3116@quack.suse.cz> <553104E5.2040704@samsung.com> <55310957.3070101@gmail.com> <55311DE2.9000901@redhat.com> <20150417154351.GA26736@quack.suse.cz> <55312FEA.3030905@redhat.com> <20150417162247.GB27500@quack.suse.cz> <553134D3.9040001@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , John Spray , Beata Michalska , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, tytso-3s7WtUTddSA@public.gmane.org, adilger.kernel-m1MBpc4rdrD3fQ9qLvQP4Q@public.gmane.org, hughd-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, lczerner-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, linux-ext4-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, kyungmin.park-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, kmpark-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, Linux Filesystem Mailing List , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <553134D3.9040001-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri 17-04-15 12:29:07, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-04-17 12:22, Jan Kara wrote: > >On Fri 17-04-15 17:08:10, John Spray wrote: > >> > >>On 17/04/2015 16:43, Jan Kara wrote: > >>>On Fri 17-04-15 15:51:14, John Spray wrote: > >>>>On 17/04/2015 14:23, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>For some filesystems, it may make sense to differentiate between a > >>>>>generic warning and an error. For BTRFS and ZFS for example, if > >>>>>there is a csum error on a block, this will get automatically > >>>>>corrected in many configurations, and won't require anything like > >>>>>fsck to be run, but monitoring applications will still probably > >>>>>want to be notified. > >>>>Another key differentiation IMHO is between transient errors (like > >>>>server is unavailable in a distributed filesystem) that will block > >>>>the filesystem but might clear on their own, vs. permanent errors > >>>>like unreadable drives that definitely will not clear until the > >>>>administrator takes some action. It's usually a reasonable > >>>>approximation to call transient issues warnings, and permanent > >>>>issues errors. > >>> So you can have events like FS_UNAVAILABLE and FS_AVAILABLE but what use > >>>would this have? I wouldn't like the interface to be dumping ground for > >>>random crap - we have dmesg for that :). > >>In that case I'm confused -- why would ENOSPC be an appropriate use > >>of this interface if the mount being entirely blocked would be > >>inappropriate? Isn't being unable to service any I/O a more > >>fundamental and severe thing than being up and healthy but full? > >> > >>Were you intending the interface to be exclusively for data > >>integrity issues like checksum failures, rather than more general > >>events about a mount that userspace would probably like to know > >>about? > > Well, I'm not saying we cannot have those events for fs availability / > >inavailability. I'm just saying I'd like to see some use for that first. > >I don't want events to be added just because it's possible... > > > >For ENOSPC we have thin provisioned storage and the userspace deamon > >shuffling real storage underneath. So there I know the usecase. > > > The use-case that immediately comes to mind for me would be diskless > nodes with root-on-nfs needing to know if they can actually access > the root filesystem. Well, most apps will access the root file system regardless of what we send over netlink... So I don't see netlink events improving the situation there too much. You could try to use it for something like failover but even there I'm not too convinced - just doing some IO, waiting for timeout, and failing over if IO doesn't complete works just fine for that these days. That's why I was asking because I didn't see convincing usecase myself... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E38A6B0032 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wgso17 with SMTP id o17so119188048wgs.1 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xb3si5465043wjc.178.2015.04.17.09.39.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:39:14 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications Message-ID: <20150417163914.GA28058@quack.suse.cz> References: <1429082147-4151-1-git-send-email-b.michalska@samsung.com> <1429082147-4151-2-git-send-email-b.michalska@samsung.com> <20150417113110.GD3116@quack.suse.cz> <553104E5.2040704@samsung.com> <55310957.3070101@gmail.com> <55311DE2.9000901@redhat.com> <20150417154351.GA26736@quack.suse.cz> <55312FEA.3030905@redhat.com> <20150417162247.GB27500@quack.suse.cz> <553134D3.9040001@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <553134D3.9040001@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Cc: Jan Kara , John Spray , Beata Michalska , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, hughd@google.com, lczerner@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, kmpark@infradead.org, Linux Filesystem Mailing List , linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri 17-04-15 12:29:07, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-04-17 12:22, Jan Kara wrote: > >On Fri 17-04-15 17:08:10, John Spray wrote: > >> > >>On 17/04/2015 16:43, Jan Kara wrote: > >>>On Fri 17-04-15 15:51:14, John Spray wrote: > >>>>On 17/04/2015 14:23, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>For some filesystems, it may make sense to differentiate between a > >>>>>generic warning and an error. For BTRFS and ZFS for example, if > >>>>>there is a csum error on a block, this will get automatically > >>>>>corrected in many configurations, and won't require anything like > >>>>>fsck to be run, but monitoring applications will still probably > >>>>>want to be notified. > >>>>Another key differentiation IMHO is between transient errors (like > >>>>server is unavailable in a distributed filesystem) that will block > >>>>the filesystem but might clear on their own, vs. permanent errors > >>>>like unreadable drives that definitely will not clear until the > >>>>administrator takes some action. It's usually a reasonable > >>>>approximation to call transient issues warnings, and permanent > >>>>issues errors. > >>> So you can have events like FS_UNAVAILABLE and FS_AVAILABLE but what use > >>>would this have? I wouldn't like the interface to be dumping ground for > >>>random crap - we have dmesg for that :). > >>In that case I'm confused -- why would ENOSPC be an appropriate use > >>of this interface if the mount being entirely blocked would be > >>inappropriate? Isn't being unable to service any I/O a more > >>fundamental and severe thing than being up and healthy but full? > >> > >>Were you intending the interface to be exclusively for data > >>integrity issues like checksum failures, rather than more general > >>events about a mount that userspace would probably like to know > >>about? > > Well, I'm not saying we cannot have those events for fs availability / > >inavailability. I'm just saying I'd like to see some use for that first. > >I don't want events to be added just because it's possible... > > > >For ENOSPC we have thin provisioned storage and the userspace deamon > >shuffling real storage underneath. So there I know the usecase. > > > The use-case that immediately comes to mind for me would be diskless > nodes with root-on-nfs needing to know if they can actually access > the root filesystem. Well, most apps will access the root file system regardless of what we send over netlink... So I don't see netlink events improving the situation there too much. You could try to use it for something like failover but even there I'm not too convinced - just doing some IO, waiting for timeout, and failing over if IO doesn't complete works just fine for that these days. That's why I was asking because I didn't see convincing usecase myself... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org