Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1616490
| From | NeilBrown <neil@brown.name> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization |
| Date | 2017-04-05 03:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tsHVL-4j1-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <tqGhs-5vQ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqKXN-ry-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <trAjE-Kq-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tsaQa-7U5-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <tsvUC-4Rz-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On Tue, Apr 04 2017, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> On Sun 02-04-17 09:05:26, Dave Chinner wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:12:31PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: >> > > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> > > > > 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? >> > > >> > > How hard is this for filesystems to support? Do they need an on-disk >> > > format change to keep track of the crash counter? >> > >> > Yes. We'll need version counter in the superblock, and we'll need to >> > know what the increment semantics are. >> > >> > The big question is how do we know there was a crash? The only thing >> > a journalling filesystem knows at mount time is whether it is clean >> > or requires recovery. Filesystems can require recovery for many >> > reasons that don't involve a crash (e.g. root fs is never unmounted >> > cleanly, so always requires recovery). Further, some filesystems may >> > not even know there was a crash at mount time because their >> > architecture always leaves a consistent filesystem on disk (e.g. COW >> > filesystems).... >> >> What filesystems can or cannot easily do obviously differs. Ext4 has a >> recovery flag set in superblock on RW mount/remount and cleared on >> umount/RO remount. > > Even this doesn't help. A recent bug that was reported to the XFS > list - turns out that systemd can't remount-ro the root > filesystem sucessfully on shutdown because there are open write fds > on the root filesystem when it attempts the remount. So it just > reboots without a remount-ro. This uncovered a bug in grub in Filesystems could use register_reboot_notifier() to get a notification that even systemd cannot stuff-up. It could check for dirty data and, if there is none (which there shouldn't be if a sync happened), it does a single write to disk to update the superblock (or a single write to each disk... or something). md does this, because getting the root device to be marked read-only is even harder than getting the root filesystem to be remounted read-only. NeilBrown
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2017-03-29 13:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> - 2017-03-29 20:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2017-03-30 01:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> - 2017-03-30 13:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2017-04-04 20:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2017-03-30 08:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> - 2017-03-30 13:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2017-03-30 18:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> - 2017-03-30 20:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Boaz Harrosh <openosd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 23:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2017-04-04 20:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization NeilBrown <neil@brown.name> - 2017-04-05 03:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2017-04-05 10:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2017-04-05 20:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization NeilBrown <neil@brown.name> - 2017-04-06 03:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2017-04-06 09:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2017-04-05 19:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2017-04-02 01:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2017-04-03 16:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2017-04-04 14:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2017-04-04 20:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization NeilBrown <neil@brown.name> - 2017-04-05 03:30 +0200
csiph-web