Message-ID: <1c3cee9f7ef81e1da09e0c7b4ee1e47dc9161a75.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 10:12:29 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner
 <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Steven Rostedt
 <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu
 Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Chandan Babu R
 <chandan.babu@...cle.com>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Theodore
 Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Chris
 Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Hugh Dickins
 <hughd@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen
 <ak@...ux.intel.com>,  kernel-team@...com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,  linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,  linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] fs: multigrain timestamp redux

On Mon, 2024-07-01 at 09:53 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:26:36AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > This set is essentially unchanged from the last one, aside from the
> > new file in Documentation/. I had a review comment from Andi Kleen
> > suggesting that the ctime_floor should be per time_namespace, but I
> > think that's incorrect as the realtime clock is not namespaced.
> > 
> > At LSF/MM this year, we had a discussion about the inode change
> > attribute. At the time I mentioned that I thought I could salvage the
> > multigrain timestamp work that had to be reverted last year [1].  That
> > version had to be reverted because it was possible for a file to get a
> > coarse grained timestamp that appeared to be earlier than another file
> > that had recently gotten a fine-grained stamp.
> > 
> > This version corrects the problem by establishing a per-time_namespace
> > ctime_floor value that should prevent this from occurring. In the above
> > situation that was problematic before, the two files might end up with
> > the same timestamp value, but they won't appear to have been modified in
> > the wrong order.
> > 
> > That problem was discovered by the test-stat-time gnulib test. Note that
> > that test still fails on multigrain timestamps, but that's because its
> > method of determining the minimum delay that will show a timestamp
> > change will no longer work with multigrain timestamps. I have a patch to
> > change the testcase to use a different method that I've posted to the
> > bug-gnulib mailing list.
> > 
> > The big question with this set is whether the performance will be
> > suitable. The testing I've done seems to show performance parity with
> > multigrain timestamps enabled, but it's hard to rule this out regressing
> > some workload.
> > 
> > This set is based on top of Christian's vfs.misc branch (which has the
> > earlier change to track inode timestamps as discrete integers). If there
> > are no major objections, I'd like to let this soak in linux-next for a
> > bit to see if any problems shake out.
> > 
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230807-mgctime-v7-0-d1dec143a704@kernel.org/
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> 
> I have a few nits that need to be addressed, but you can add
> 
> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
> 
> to the series once they're addressed.  Thanks,
> 

Thanks! Fixed them up in my tree. I left the IS_I_VERSION check out as
well, and added a note to the changelog on the btrfs patch.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists