Message-ID: <6e6da8a875a0defec1a0f58314995a6a12dca74e.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:46:25 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, Bruno Haible <bruno@...sp.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...uxfromscratch.org>, bug-gnulib@....org
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Jan Harkes <jaharkes@...cmu.edu>, coda@...cmu.edu,
        Tyler Hicks <code@...icks.com>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
        Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, Yue Hu <huyue2@...lpad.com>,
        Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
        Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Bo b Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
        Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com>,
        Mark Fasheh <mark@...heh.com>,
        Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
        Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Mike Marshall <hubcap@...ibond.com>,
        Martin Brandenburg <martin@...ibond.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
        Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@...il.com>,
        Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>,
        Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <l@...il.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        codalist@...a.cs.cmu.edu, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev,
        ocfs2-devel@...ts.linux.dev, devel@...ts.orangefs.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 12/13] ext4: switch to multigrain timestamps

On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 13:10 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2023-09-19 09:31, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > The typical case for make
> > timestamp comparisons is comparing source files vs. a build target. If
> > those are being written nearly simultaneously, then that could be an
> > issue, but is that a typical behavior?
> 
> I vaguely remember running into problems with 'make' a while ago 
> (perhaps with a BSDish system) when filesystem timestamps were 
> arbitrarily truncated in some cases but not others. These files would 
> look older than they really were, so 'make' would think they were 
> up-to-date when they weren't, and 'make' would omit actions that it 
> should have done, thus screwing up the build.
> 
> File timestamps can be close together with 'make -j' on fast hosts. 
> Sometimes a shell script (or 'make' itself) will run 'make', then modify 
> a file F, then immediately run 'make' again; the latter 'make' won't 
> work if F's timestamp is mistakenly older than targets that depend on it.
> 
> Although 'make'-like apps are the biggest canaries in this coal mine, 
> the issue also affects 'find -newer' (as Bruno mentioned), 'rsync -u', 
> 'mv -u', 'tar -u', Emacs file-newer-than-file-p, and surely many other 
> places. For example, any app that creates a timestamp file, then backs 
> up all files newer than that file, would be at risk.
> 
> 
> > I wonder if it would be feasible to just advance the coarse-grained
> > current_time whenever we end up updating a ctime with a fine-grained
> > timestamp?
> 
> Wouldn't this need to be done globally, that is, not just on a per-file 
> or per-filesystem basis? If so, I don't see how we'd avoid locking 
> performance issues.
> 

Maybe. Another idea might be to introduce a new timekeeper for
multigrain filesystems, but all of those would likely have to share the
same coarse-grained clock source.

So yeah, if you stat an inode and then update it, any inode written on a
multigrain filesystem within the same jiffy-sized window would have to
log an extra transaction to write out the inode. That's what I meant
when I was talking about write amplification.

> 
> PS. Although I'm no expert in the Linux inode code I hope you don't mind 
> my asking a question about this part of inode_set_ctime_current:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * If we've recently updated with a fine-grained timestamp,
> 	 * then the coarse-grained one may still be earlier than the
> 	 * existing ctime. Just keep the existing value if so.
> 	 */
> 	ctime.tv_sec = inode->__i_ctime.tv_sec;
> 	if (timespec64_compare(&ctime, &now) > 0)
> 		return ctime;
> 
> Suppose root used clock_settime to set the clock backwards. Won't this 
> code incorrectly refuse to update the file's timestamp afterwards? That 
> is, shouldn't the last line be "goto fine_grained;" rather than "return 
> ctime;", with the comment changed from "keep the existing value" to "use 
> a fine-grained value"?

It is a problem, and Linus pointed that out yesterday, which is why I
sent this earlier today:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230919-ctime-v1-1-97b3da92f504@kernel.org/T/#u

Bear in mind that we're not dealing with a situation where the value has
not been queried since its last update, so we don't need to use a fine
grained timestamp there (and really, it's preferable not to do so). A
coarse one should be fine in this case.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists