From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@oracle.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.de>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] timekeeping: new interfaces for multigrain timestamp handing
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 13:11:56 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg4jyTxO8WWUc1quqSETGaVsPHh8UeFUROYNwU-fEbkJg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZUAwFkAizH1PrIZp@dread.disaster.area>
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 12:37, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> If XFS can ignore relatime or lazytime persistent updates for given
> situations, then *we don't need to make periodic on-disk updates of
> atime*. This makes the whole problem of "persistent atime update bumps
> i_version" go away because then we *aren't making persistent atime
> updates* except when some other persistent modification that bumps
> [cm]time occurs.
Well, I think this should be split into two independent questions:
(a) are relatime or lazytime atime updates persistent if nothing else changes?
(b) do atime updates _ever_ update i_version *regardless* of relatime
or lazytime?
and honestly, I think the best answer to (b) would be that "no,
i_version should simply not change for atime updates". And I think
that answer is what it is because no user of i_version seems to want
it.
Now, the reason it's a single question for you is that apparently for
XFS, the only thing that matters is "inode was written to disk" and
that "di_changecount" value is thus related to the persistence of
atime updates, but splitting di_changecount out to be a separate thing
from i_version seems to be on the table, so I think those two things
really could be independent issues.
> But I don't want to do this unconditionally - for systems not
> running anything that samples i_version we want relatime/lazytime
> to behave as they are supposed to and do periodic persistent updates
> as per normal. Principle of least surprise and all that jazz.
Well - see above: I think in a perfect world, we'd simply never change
i_version at all for any atime updates, and relatime/lazytime simply
wouldn't be an issue at all wrt i_version.
Wouldn't _that_ be the trule "least surprising" behavior? Considering
that nobody wants i_version to change for what are otherwise pure
reads (that's kind of the *definition* of atime, after all).
Now, the annoyance here is that *both* (a) and (b) then have that
impact of "i_version no longer tracks di_changecount".
So I don't think the issue here is "i_version" per se. I think in a
vacuum, the best option of i_version is pretty obvious. But if you
want i_version to track di_changecount, *then* you end up with that
situation where the persistence of atime matters, and i_version needs
to update whenever a (persistent) atime update happens.
> So we really need an indication for inodes that we should enable this
> mode for the inode. I have asked if we can have per-operation
> context flag to trigger this given the needs for io_uring to have
> context flags for timestamp updates to be added.
I really think some kind of new and even *more* complex and
non-intuitive behavior is the worst of both worlds. Having atime
updates be conditionally persistent - on top of already being delayed
by lazytime/relatime - and having the persistence magically change
depending on whether something wants to get i_version updates - sounds
just completely crazy.
Particularly as *none* of the people who want i_version updates
actually want them for atime at all.
So I really think this all boils down to "is xfs really willing to
split bi_changecount from i_version"?
> I have asked if we can have an inode flag set by the VFS or
> application code for this. e.g. a flag set by nfsd whenever it accesses a
> given inode.
>
> I have asked if this inode flag can just be triggered if we ever see
> I_VERSION_QUERIED set or statx is used to retrieve a change cookie,
> and whether this is a reliable mechanism for setting such a flag.
See above: linking this to I_VERSION_QUERIED is horrific. The people
who set that bit do *NOT* want atime updates to change i_version under
any circumstances. It was always a mistake.
This really is all *entirely* an artifact of that "bi_changecount" vs
"i_version" being tied together. You did seem to imply that you'd be
ok with having "bi_changecount" be split from i_version, ie from an
earlier email in this thread:
"Now that NFS is using a proper abstraction (i.e. vfs_statx()) to get
the change cookie, we really don't need to expose di_changecount in
i_version at all - we could simply copy an internal di_changecount
value into the statx cookie field in xfs_vn_getattr() and there
would be almost no change of behaviour from the perspective of NFS
and IMA at all"
but while I suspect *that* part is easy and straightforward, the
problem then becomes one of "what about the persistence of i_version",
and then you'd need a new field for *that* anyway, and would want a
new on-disk format regardless.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-30 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-18 17:41 [PATCH RFC 0/9] fs: multigrain timestamps (redux) Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 1/9] fs: switch timespec64 fields in inode to discrete integers Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 2/9] timekeeping: new interfaces for multigrain timestamp handing Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 19:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 20:47 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 21:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 21:52 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-19 9:29 ` Christian Brauner
2023-10-19 11:28 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-19 22:02 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-20 12:12 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-20 20:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-20 20:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-20 21:05 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-22 22:17 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-23 14:45 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-23 23:26 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-24 0:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-24 3:40 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-24 4:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-24 7:08 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-10-24 18:40 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-25 8:05 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-25 10:41 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-10-25 12:25 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-26 2:20 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-26 5:42 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-10-27 10:35 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-30 22:37 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-30 23:11 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2023-10-31 1:42 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-31 7:03 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-10-31 10:30 ` Christian Brauner
2023-10-31 11:29 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-31 21:57 ` Dave Chinner
2023-10-31 23:02 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-10-31 23:47 ` Dave Chinner
2023-11-01 10:16 ` Jan Kara
2023-11-01 11:38 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-11-02 10:17 ` Jeff Layton
2023-11-01 20:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-11-01 21:34 ` Trond Myklebust
2023-11-01 22:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-11-01 22:45 ` Trond Myklebust
2023-11-01 23:29 ` Dave Chinner
2023-11-02 10:29 ` Jeff Layton
2023-11-02 10:15 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-31 23:12 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-11-01 8:08 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-10-31 11:26 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-31 19:43 ` John Stoffel
2023-10-31 11:04 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-31 12:22 ` Jan Kara
2023-10-31 12:55 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-30 23:34 ` ronnie sahlberg
2023-10-24 14:24 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-24 19:06 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-24 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-24 20:19 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-31 10:26 ` Christian Brauner
2023-10-31 13:55 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-19 22:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-10-19 22:41 ` Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 3/9] timekeeping: add new debugfs file to count multigrain timestamps Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 4/9] fs: add infrastructure for " Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 5/9] fs: have setattr_copy handle multigrain timestamps appropriately Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 6/9] xfs: switch to multigrain timestamps Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 7/9] ext4: " Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 8/9] btrfs: convert " Jeff Layton
2023-10-18 17:41 ` [PATCH RFC 9/9] tmpfs: add support for " Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAHk-=wg4jyTxO8WWUc1quqSETGaVsPHh8UeFUROYNwU-fEbkJg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.de \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).