On Wed 29-03-17 13:54:31, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > > - It's durable; the above comparison still works if there were
> > > > > > reboots
> > > > > > between the two i_version checks.
> > > > > > - I don't know how realistic this is--we may need to figure out
> > > > > > if there's a weaker guarantee that's still useful. Do
> > > > > > filesystems actually make ctime/mtime/i_version changes
> > > > > > atomically with the changes that caused them? What if a
> > > > > > change attribute is exposed to an NFS client but doesn't make
> > > > > > it to disk, and then that value is reused after reboot?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, there could be atomicity there. If we bump i_version, we'll mark
> > > > > the inode dirty and I think that will end up with the new i_version at
> > > > > least being journalled before __mark_inode_dirty returns.
> > > >
> > > > So you think the filesystem can provide the atomicity? In more detail:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I hit send too quickly. That should have read:
> > >
> > > "Yeah, there could be atomicity issues there."
> > >
> > > I think providing that level of atomicity may be difficult, though
> > > maybe there's some way to make the querying of i_version block until
> > > the inode update has been journalled?
> >
> > Just to complement what Dave said from ext4 side - similarly as with XFS
> > ext4 doesn't guarantee atomicity unless fsync() has completed on the file.
> > Until that you can see arbitrary combination of data & i_version after the
> > crash. We do take care to keep data and metadata in sync only when there
> > are security implications to that (like exposing uninitialized disk blocks)
> > and if not, we are as lazy as we can to improve performance...
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, I think what we'll have to do here is ensure that those
> filesystems do an fsync prior to reporting the i_version getattr
> codepath. It's not pretty, but I don't see a real alternative.
Hum, so are we fine if i_version just changes (increases) for all inodes
after a server crash? If I understand its use right, it would mean
invalidation of all client's caches but that is not such a big deal given
how frequent server crashes should be, right?
Because if above is acceptable we could make reported i_version to be a sum
of "superblock crash counter" and "inode i_version". We increment
"superblock crash counter" whenever we detect unclean filesystem shutdown.
That way after a crash we are guaranteed each inode will report new
i_version (the sum would probably have to look like "superblock crash
counter" * 65536 + "inode i_version" so that we avoid reusing possible
i_version numbers we gave away but did not write to disk but still...).
Thoughts?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
