Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:33:24 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, jlayton@kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has
 I_DIRTY_INODE
Message-ID: <20220822083324.q7qcxtkfji66ho4l@quack3>
References: <20220812123727.46397-1-lczerner@redhat.com>
 <20220812123727.46397-2-lczerner@redhat.com>
 <YvaYC+LRFqQJT0U9@sol.localdomain>
 <20220816112124.taqvli527475gwv4@quack3>
 <YwHNTSUBEQFPgUhL@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YwHNTSUBEQFPgUhL@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat 20-08-22 23:14:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:21:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > 2) I_DIRTY_TIME flag passed to ->dirty_inode() callback. This is admittedly
> > bit of a hack. Currently XFS relies on the fact that the only time its
> > ->dirty_inode() callback needs to do anything is when VFS decides it is
> > time to writeback timestamps and XFS detects this situation by checking for
> > I_DIRTY_TIME in inode->i_state. Now to fix the race, we need to first clear
> > I_DIRTY_TIME in inode->i_state and only then call the ->dirty_inode()
> > callback (otherwise timestamp update can get lost). So the solution I've
> > suggested was to propagate the information "timestamp update needed" to XFS
> > through I_DIRTY_TIME in flags passed to ->dirty_inode().
> 
> Maybe we should just add a separate update_lazy_time method to make this
> a little more clear?

Yes, we could do that if people prefer this. Although I'd say that good
documentation at the place in __mark_inode_dirty() where this gets used and
in documentation of .dirty_inode might clear the confusion as well.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR