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;
Message-ID: <6173b33e43ac8b0e4377b5d65fec7231608f71f7.camel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new
 STATX_INO_VERSION field
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        djwong@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, trondmy@hammerspace.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, zohar@linux.ibm.com, xiubli@redhat.com,
        chuck.lever@oracle.com, lczerner@redhat.com, brauner@kernel.org,
        fweimer@redhat.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 09 Sep 2022 08:47:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <YxstWiu34TfJ6muW@mit.edu>
References: <79aaf122743a295ddab9525d9847ac767a3942aa.camel@kernel.org>
         <20220907125211.GB17729@fieldses.org>
         <771650a814ab1ff4dc5473d679936b747d9b6cf5.camel@kernel.org>
         <20220907135153.qvgibskeuz427abw@quack3>
         <166259786233.30452.5417306132987966849@noble.neil.brown.name>
         <20220908083326.3xsanzk7hy3ff4qs@quack3> <YxoIjV50xXKiLdL9@mit.edu>
         <02928a8c5718590bea5739b13d6b6ebe66cac577.camel@kernel.org>
         <20220908155605.GD8951@fieldses.org>
         <9e06c506fd6b3e3118da0ec24276e85ea3ee45a1.camel@kernel.org>
         <YxstWiu34TfJ6muW@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-1.fc36) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 08:11 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 01:40:11PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >=20
> > 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?
>=20
> Yeah, I was thinking about just adding it to struct super, with some
> value (perhaps 0 or ~0) meaning that the file system didn't support
> it.  If people were concerned about struct super bloat, we could also
> add some new function to struct super_ops that would return one or
> more values that are used rarely by most of the kernel code, and so
> doesn't need to be in the struct super data structure.  I don't have
> strong feelings one way or another.
>=20

Either would be fine, I think.

> On another note, my personal opinion is that at least as far as ext4
> is concerned, i_version on disk's only use is for NFS's convenience,

Technically, IMA uses it too, but it needs the same behavior as NFSv4.

> and so I have absolutely no problem with changing how and when
> i_version gets updated modulo concerns about impacting performance.
> That's one of the reasons why being able to update i_version only
> lazily, so that if we had, say, some workload that was doing O_DIRECT
> writes followed by fdatasync(), there wouldn't be any obligation to
> flush the inode out to disk just because we had bumped i_version
> appeals to me.
>=20

i_version only changes now if someone has queried it since it was last
changed. That makes a huge difference in performance. We can try to
optimize it further, but it probably wouldn't move the needle much under
real workloads.

> But aside from that, I don't consider when i_version gets updated on
> disk, especially what the semantics are after a crash, and if we need
> to change things so that NFS can be more performant, I'm happy to
> accomodate.  One of the reasons why we implemented the ext4 fast
> commit feature was to improve performance for NFS workloads.
>=20
> I know some XFS developers have some concerns here, but I just wanted
> to make it be explicit that (a) I'm not aware of any users who are
> depending on the i_version on-disk semantics, and (b) if they are
> depending on something which as far as I'm concerned in an internal
> implementation detail, we've made no promises to them, and they can
> get to keep both pieces.  :-)  This is especially since up until now,
> there is no supported, portable userspace interface to make i_version
> available to userspace.
>=20

Great! That's what I was hoping for with ext4. Would you be willing to
pick up these two patches for v6.1?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220908172448.208585-3-jlayton@kernel.o=
rg/T/#u
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220908172448.208585-4-jlayton@kernel.o=
rg/T/#u

They should be able to go in independently of the rest of the series and
I don't forsee any big changes to them.

Thanks,
--=20
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>