[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 10:43:30 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
djwong@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, trondmy@...merspace.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, zohar@...ux.ibm.com, xiubli@...hat.com,
chuck.lever@...cle.com, lczerner@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org,
fweimer@...hat.com, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new
STATX_INO_VERSION field
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 09:48 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:47:17AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > i_version only changes now if someone has queried it since it was last
> > changed. That makes a huge difference in performance. We can try to
> > optimize it further, but it probably wouldn't move the needle much under
> > real workloads.
>
> Good point. And to be clear, from NFS's perspective, you only need to
> have i_version bumped if there is a user-visible change to the
> file. --- with an explicit exception here of the FIEMAP system call,
> since in the case of a delayed allocation, FIEMAP might change from
> reporting:
>
> ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags:
> 0: 0.. 0: 0.. 0: 0: last,unknown_loc,delalloc,eof
>
> to this:
>
> ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags:
> 0: 0.. 0: 190087172.. 190087172: 1: last,eof
>
> after a sync(2) or fsync(2) call, or after time passes.
>
In general, we want to bump i_version if the ctime changes. I'm guessing
that we don't change ctime on a delalloc? If it's not visible to NFS,
then NFS won't care about it. We can't project FIEMAP info across the
wire at this time, so we'd probably like to avoid seeing an i_version
bump in due to delalloc.
> > Great! That's what I was hoping for with ext4. Would you be willing to
> > pick up these two patches for v6.1?
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220908172448.208585-3-jlayton@kernel.org/T/#u
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220908172448.208585-4-jlayton@kernel.org/T/#u
>
> I think you mean:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220908172448.208585-2-jlayton@kernel.org/T/#u
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220908172448.208585-3-jlayton@kernel.org/T/#u
>
> Right?
>
> BTW, sorry for not responding to these patches earlier; between
> preparing for the various Linux conferences in Dublin next week, and
> being in Zurich and meeting with colleagues at $WORK all of this week,
> I'm a bit behind on my patch reviews.
>
No worries. As long as they're on your radar, that's fine.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists