On Fri, 09 Sep 2022, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 14:22 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 01:40:11PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > Yeah, ok. That does make some sense. So we would mix this into the
> > > i_version instead of the ctime when it was available. Preferably, we'd
> > > mix that in when we store the i_version rather than adding it afterward.
> > >
> > > Ted, how would we access this? Maybe we could just add a new (generic)
> > > super_block field for this that ext4 (and other filesystems) could
> > > populate at mount time?
> >
> > Couldn't the filesystem just return an ino_version that already includes
> > it?
> >
>
> Yes. That's simple if we want to just fold it in during getattr. If we
> want to fold that into the values stored on disk, then I'm a little less
> clear on how that will work.
>
> Maybe I need a concrete example of how that will work:
>
> Suppose we have an i_version value X with the previous crash counter
> already factored in that makes it to disk. We hand out a newer version
> X+1 to a client, but that value never makes it to disk.
As I understand it, the crash counter would NEVER appear in the on-disk
i_version.
The crash counter is stable while a filesystem is mounted so is the same
when loading an inode from disk and when writing it back.
When loading, add crash counter to on-disk i_version to provide
in-memory i_version.
when storing, subtract crash counter from in-memory i_version to provide
on-disk i_version.
"add" and "subtract" could be any reversible hash, and its inverse. I
would probably shift the crash counter up 16 and add/subtract.
NeilBrown
>
> The machine crashes and comes back up, and we get a query for i_version
> and it comes back as X. Fine, it's an old version. Now there is a write.
> What do we do to ensure that the new value doesn't collide with X+1?
> --
> Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>