[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45BFF2D0.4050808@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:37:20 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
CC: akpm@...l.org, dev@...ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers
Jeff Layton wrote:
> Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > change pipefs to use a unique inode number equal to the memory
> > address unless it would be truncated.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
> > ---
> > Tested on i386.
> >
> > --- 2.6.19/fs/pipe.c.ori 2007-01-30 22:02:46.000000000 +0100
> > +++ 2.6.19/fs/pipe.c 2007-01-30 23:22:27.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -864,6 +864,10 @@ static struct inode * get_pipe_inode(voi
> > inode->i_uid = current->fsuid;
> > inode->i_gid = current->fsgid;
> > inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
> > + /* The address of *inode is unique, so we'll get an unique inode
> number.
> > + * Off cause this will not work for 32 bit inodes on 64 bit
> systems. */
> > + if (sizeof(inode->i_ino) >= sizeof(struct inode*))
> > + inode->i_ino = (unsigned int) inode;
> >
> > return inode;
> >
>
> Also, that patch would break many 32-bit programs not compiled with large
> offsets when run in compatibility mode on a 64-bit kernel. If they were to
> do a stat on this inode, it would likely generate an EOVERFLOW error since
> the pointer address would probably not fit in a 32 bit field.
>
> That problem was the whole impetus for this set of patches.
>
Actually, sorry...I misread the patch. It wouldn't have that problem. My
mistake.
Still though, I considered an approach somewhat similar to this early on.
I was thinking of taking a bit-shifted inode address and hashing it to
give a unique value. If you do the math, you can discard the lower 9 bits
of the pointer, so you end up being able to use the lower 41 bits of the
pointer. So a scheme like that could work if you could guarantee that
all inode addresses wouldn't be > 2^41 apart.
The problem is, you can't guarantee that, especially in a NUMA situation.
See the thread entitled:
[RFC][PATCH] ensure i_ino uniqueness in filesystems without
permanent inode numbers (via pointer conversion)
in linux-fsdevel, ~Nov 17th for more info.
-- Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists