Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Sun, 24 Sep 2023 12:26:51 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] timestamp fixes
Message-ID: <20230924-trial-dennoch-e641f0e0ee1b@brauner>
References: <20230921-umgekehrt-buden-a8718451ef7c@brauner>
 <CAHk-=wgoNW9QmEzhJR7C1_vKWKr=8JoD4b7idQDNHOa10P_i4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <0d006954b698cb1cea3a93c1662b5913a0ded3b1.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAHk-=whAwTJduUZTrsLFnj1creZMfO7eCNERHXZQmzX+qLqZMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ4uxjcyfhfRhgR97wqsJHwzyOYqOYaaZWMWWCGXu5MWtKXfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjGJEgizkXwSWVCnsGnciCKHHsWg+dkw2XAhM+0Tnd0Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ4uxgFb250Na9cJz0Jo-ioPynWCk0vxTDU-6hAKoEVQhgvRg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxgFb250Na9cJz0Jo-ioPynWCk0vxTDU-6hAKoEVQhgvRg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> > Those workloads are broken garbage, and we should *not* use that kind
> > of sh*t to decide on VFS internals.
> >
> 
> Sorry, I phrased it completely wrong.

Thanks for clearing this up. I had just formulated my own reply but I'll
happily delete it. :)

> The workloads don't expect 1ns resolution.

Yes, they don't. In the revert explanation I just used that number to
illustrate the general ordering problem. The workload that surfaced the
issue is just plain weird of course but it points to a more general
ordering problem.

> The workloads just compare timestamps of objects and expect some sane
> not-before ordering rules.

Yes.

> If user visible timestamps are truncated to 100ns all is good.

Yes.