Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Message-ID: <2c74660bc44557dba8391758535e4012cbea3724.camel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] timekeeping: new interfaces for multigrain
 timestamp handing
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@oracle.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:06:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whphyjjLwDcEthOOFXXfgwGrtrMnW2iyjdQioV6YSMEPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHk-=wixObEhBXM22JDopRdt7Z=tGGuizq66g4RnUmG9toA2DA@mail.gmail.com>
         <d6162230b83359d3ed1ee706cc1cb6eacfb12a4f.camel@kernel.org>
         <CAHk-=wiKJgOg_3z21Sy9bu+3i_34S86r8fd6ngvJpZDwa-ww8Q@mail.gmail.com>
         <5f96e69d438ab96099bb67d16b77583c99911caa.camel@kernel.org>
         <20231019-fluor-skifahren-ec74ceb6c63e@brauner>
         <0a1a847af4372e62000b259e992850527f587205.camel@kernel.org>
         <ZTGncMVw19QVJzI6@dread.disaster.area>
         <eb3b9e71ee9c6d8e228b0927dec3ac9177b06ec6.camel@kernel.org>
         <ZTWfX3CqPy9yCddQ@dread.disaster.area>
         <61b32a4093948ae1ae8603688793f07de764430f.camel@kernel.org>
         <ZTcBI2xaZz1GdMjX@dread.disaster.area>
         <CAHk-=whphyjjLwDcEthOOFXXfgwGrtrMnW2iyjdQioV6YSMEPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 14:18 -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 13:26, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> >=20
> > The problem is the first read request after a modification has been
> > made. That is causing relatime to see mtime > atime and triggering
> > an atime update. XFS sees this, does an atime update, and in
> > committing that persistent inode metadata update, it calls
> > inode_maybe_inc_iversion(force =3D false) to check if an iversion
> > update is necessary. The VFS sees I_VERSION_QUERIED, and so it bumps
> > i_version and tells XFS to persist it.
>=20
> Could we perhaps just have a mode where we don't increment i_version
> for just atime updates?
>=20
> Maybe we don't even need a mode, and could just decide that atime
> updates aren't i_version updates at all?
>=20
> Yes, yes, it's obviously technically a "inode modification", but does
> anybody actually *want* atime updates with no actual other changes to
> be version events?
>=20
> Or maybe i_version can update, but callers of getattr() could have two
> bits for that STATX_CHANGE_COOKIE, one for "I care about atime" and
> one for others, and we'd pass that down to inode_query_version, and
> we'd have a I_VERSION_QUERIED and a I_VERSION_QUERIED_STRICT, and the
> "I care about atime" case ould set the strict one.
>=20
> Then inode_maybe_inc_iversion() could - for atome updates - skip the
> version update *unless* it sees that I_VERSION_QUERIED_STRICT bit.
>=20
> Does that sound sane to people?
>=20
> Because it does sound completely insane to me to say "inode changed"
> and have a cache invalidation just for an atime update.
>=20


The new flag idea is a good one. The catch though is that there are no
readers of i_version in-kernel other than NFSD and IMA, so there would
be no in-kernel users of I_VERSION_QUERIED_STRICT.

In earlier discussions, I was given to believe that the problem with
changing how this works in XFS involved offline filesystem access tools.
That said, I didn't press for enough details at the time, so I may have
misunderstood Dave's reticence to change how this works.
--=20
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>