[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3c0e3ae74a6f30547bd5c49c32c17f1e7a13b0c.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:30:13 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
"zohar@...ux.ibm.com" <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"djwong@...nel.org" <djwong@...nel.org>,
"xiubli@...hat.com" <xiubli@...hat.com>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"neilb@...e.de" <neilb@...e.de>,
"david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"chuck.lever@...cle.com" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
"linux-ceph@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ceph@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lczerner@...hat.com" <lczerner@...hat.com>,
"adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"walters@...bum.org" <walters@...bum.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] iversion: update comments with info about atime
updates
On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 14:32 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 01:02:50PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > The fact that NFS kept this more loosely-defined is what allowed us to
> > elide some of the i_version bumps and regain a fair bit of performance
> > for local filesystems [1]. If the change attribute had been more
> > strictly defined like you mention, then that particular optimization
> > would not have been possible.
> >
> > This sort of thing is why I'm a fan of not defining this any more
> > strictly than we require. Later on, maybe we'll come up with a way for
> > filesystems to advertise that they can offer stronger guarantees.
>
> Yeah, the afs change-attribute-as-counter thing seems ambitious--I
> wouldn't even know how to define what exactly you're counting.
>
> My one question is whether it'd be worth just defining the thing as
> *increasing*. That's a lower bar.
>
That's a very good question.
One could argue that NFSv4 sort of requires that for write delegations
anyway. All of the existing implementations that I know of do this, so
that wouldn't rule any of them out.
I'm not opposed to adding that constraint. Let me think on it a bit
more.
> (Though admittedly we don't quite manage it now--see again 1631087ba872
> "Revert "nfsd4: support change_attr_type attribute"".)
>
Factoring the ctime into the change attr seems wrong, since a clock jump
could make it go backward. Do you remember what drove that change (see
630458e730b8) ?
It seems like if the i_version were to go backward, then the ctime
probably would too, and you'd still see a duplicate change attr.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists