lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization
From
Date
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>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-29 19:55    [W:0.106 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site