From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:33696 "EHLO
        userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750748AbeCPGhL (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:37:11 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:30:45 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Andiry Xu <jix024@eng.ucsd.edu>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "Rudoff, Andy" <andy.rudoff@intel.com>, coughlan@redhat.com,
        Steven Swanson <swanson@cs.ucsd.edu>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        swhiteho@redhat.com, miklos@szeredi.hu,
        Jian Xu <andiry.xu@gmail.com>, Andiry Xu <jix024@cs.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 03/83] Add super.h.
Message-ID: <20180316063045.GI4875@magnolia>
References: <1520705944-6723-1-git-send-email-jix024@eng.ucsd.edu>
 <1520705944-6723-4-git-send-email-jix024@eng.ucsd.edu>
 <20180315045401.GB4860@magnolia>
 <CAD4SzjtHmBTisX6vQYuEnJf0fKsF==w5GHqsdks6xGv1go7Lzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1OJqHEOgiHk1ZQytGW7b1c2Nam5xjSxxkfx=h2x7f_mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD4Szjt6URWFEuB_qZcnoQMqCLNwyCns0CCP==Su7iQOt=ddMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a2JgVVRsiBzTuUACwmCoVFkkJbF9zGfk4Yu0KzzRV=81Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180316025928.GB2254@thunk.org>
 <CAD4SzjuasjXdEZ_ZbFEhySF+7kY6G9V=7D5_nSMfiEQQ9O3_Pg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD4SzjuasjXdEZ_ZbFEhySF+7kY6G9V=7D5_nSMfiEQQ9O3_Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:17:54PM -0700, Andiry Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:38:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>
> >> You could also have a resolution of less than a nanosecond. Note
> >> that today, the file time stamps generated by the kernel are in
> >> jiffies resolution, so at best one millisecond. However, most modern
> >> file systems go with the 64+32 bit timestamps because it's not all
> >> that expensive.
> >
> > It actually depends on the architecture and the accuracy/granularity
> > of the timekeeping hardware available to the system, but it's possible
> > for the granularity of file time stamps to be up to one nanosecond.
> > So you can get results like this:
> >
> > % stat unix_io.o
> >   File: unix_io.o
> >   Size: 55000           Blocks: 112        IO Block: 4096   regular file
> > Device: fc01h/64513d    Inode: 19931278    Links: 1
> > Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: (15806/   tytso)   Gid: (15806/   tytso)
> > Access: 2018-03-15 18:09:21.679914182 -0400
> > Modify: 2018-03-15 18:09:21.639914089 -0400
> > Change: 2018-03-15 18:09:21.639914089 -0400
> >
> 
> Thanks for all the suggestions. I think I will follow ext4's time
> format. 2446 should be far away enough.

If you do, try to avoid the encoding problems that ext4 (still) has:

Not-fixed-by: a4dad1ae24f8 ("ext4: Fix handling of extended tv_sec")

--D

> Thanks,
> Andiry