Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization

From	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization
Date	2017-04-03 16:10 +0200
Message-ID	<tsaQa-7U5-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <tqq30-1Wd-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqC49-2hn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqGhs-5vQ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqKXN-ry-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <trAjE-Kq-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

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. This flag being set on mount would imply incrementing
the crash counter. It should be pretty easy for each filesystem to
implement such flag and the counter but I agree it requires an on-disk
format change.
 
								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

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