On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 12:21 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:22:23AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > +static inline u64 nfsd4_change_attribute(struct inode *inode)
> > > +{
> > > + u64 chattr;
> > > +
> > > + chattr =
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:22:23AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, May 11 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > +static inline u64 nfsd4_change_attribute(struct inode *inode)
> > +{
> > + u64 chattr;
> > +
> > + chattr = inode->i_ctime.tv_sec << 30;
> > + chattr += inode->i_ctime.tv_nsec;
> > +
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:01:25AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> This looks reasonable to me (modulo Jan's comment about casting tv_sec
> to u64).
>
> To be clear, I think this is mostly orthogonal to the changes that I was
> originally proposing, right? I think we can still benefit from only
>
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:27:54AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 11-05-17 14:59:43, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:14:09PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > 1) Keep i_version as is, make clients also check
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 14:59 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:14:09PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > 1) Keep i_version as is, make clients also check for i_ctime.
> >
> > That would be a protocol revision,
On Thu 11-05-17 14:59:43, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:14:09PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > 1) Keep i_version as is, make clients also check for i_ctime.
> >
> > That would be a protocol revision, which
On Thu, May 11 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:14:09PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> > 1) Keep i_version as is, make clients also check for i_ctime.
>>
>> That would be a protocol revision, which we'd
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:14:09PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > 1) Keep i_version as is, make clients also check for i_ctime.
>
> That would be a protocol revision, which we'd definitely rather avoid.
>
> But can't we accomplish
On Thu 06-04-17 11:12:02, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05 2017, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> If you want to ensure read-only files can remain cached over a crash,
> >> then you would have to mark a file in some way on stable storage
> >> *before* allowing any change.
> >> e.g. you could use the lsb.
On Wed, Apr 05 2017, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 05-04-17 11:43:32, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 04 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 12:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> 1) Keep i_version as is, make clients also check for i_ctime.
That would be a protocol revision, which we'd definitely rather avoid.
But can't we accomplish the same by using something like
ctime * (some constant) + i_version
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:43:32AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 12:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton
On Wed 05-04-17 11:43:32, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 12:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> > >
On Tue, Apr 04 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 12:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> >
On Tue, Apr 04 2017, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Sun 02-04-17 09:05:26, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:12:31PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> > > >
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:41:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:54:31PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 12:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Because if above is acceptable we could make
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:34:14PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > What filesystems can or cannot easily do obviously differs. Ext4 has a
> > recovery flag set in superblock on RW mount/remount and cleared on
> > umount/RO remount.
>
>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 02-04-17 09:05:26, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:12:31PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara
On Sun 02-04-17 09:05:26, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:12:31PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Because if above is acceptable we could make reported
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:12:31PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Because if above is acceptable we could make reported i_version to be a
> > > sum
> > > of "superblock crash
On 03/30/2017 09:35 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
<>
> Yeah, I imagine we'd need a on-disk change for this unless there's
> something already present that we could use in place of a crash counter.
>
Perhaps we can use s_mtime and/or s_wtime in some way, I'm not sure
what is a parallel for that in xfs.
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 12:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Hum, so are we fine if i_version just changes (increases) for all inodes
> > > after a server crash? If I understand
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:11:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hum, so are we fine if i_version just changes (increases) for all inodes
> > after a server crash? If I understand its use right, it would mean
> > invalidation of all client's
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 10:41 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:54:31PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 29-03-17 13:54:31, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 21,
On Wed 29-03-17 13:54:31, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > On Tue,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:54:31PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 13:15 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >
On Tue 21-03-17 14:46:53, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > - It's durable; the above comparison still works if
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 08:45 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > - It's durable; the above comparison still works if there were reboots
> > > between the two i_version checks.
On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 15:13 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:46:53PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > - It's durable; the above comparison still works if there were reboots
> > between the two i_version checks.
> > - I don't know how realistic this is--we may need to
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:46:53PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > - It's durable; the above comparison
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > - It's durable; the above comparison still works if there were reboots
> > between the two i_version checks.
> > - I don't know how realistic this is--we may need to
On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > - It's durable; the above comparison still works if there were reboots
> > > between the two i_version
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:37:04PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > - NFS doesn't actually require that it increases, but I think it
> > > should. I assume 64 bits
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > - NFS doesn't actually require that it increases, but I think it
> > should. I assume 64 bits means we don't need a discussion of
> > wraparound.
>
> I
On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:45:00AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:43:27PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > To me, the interesting question is whether this allows us to turn on
> > > i_version updates by
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:45:00AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:43:27PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > To me, the interesting question is whether this allows us to turn on
> > i_version updates by default on xfs and ext4.
>
> XFS v5 file systems have it on by
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:43:27PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> To me, the interesting question is whether this allows us to turn on
> i_version updates by default on xfs and ext4.
XFS v5 file systems have it on by default. Although we'll still need
to agree on the exact semantics of
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-22 at 00:45 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > >
> > > Only btrfs, ext4, and xfs implement it for data changes. Because of
> > > this, these filesystems
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 07:53:57PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 18:00 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > tl;dr: I think we can greatly reduce the cost of the inode->i_version
> > > counter, by exploiting the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> tl;dr: I think we can greatly reduce the cost of the inode->i_version
> counter, by exploiting the fact that we don't need to increment it
> if no one is looking at it. We can also clean up the code to prepare
> to eventually expose
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 18:00 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > tl;dr: I think we can greatly reduce the cost of the inode->i_version
> > counter, by exploiting the fact that we don't need to increment it
> > if no one is looking at it.
On Thu, 2016-12-22 at 00:45 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > Only btrfs, ext4, and xfs implement it for data changes. Because of
> > this, these filesystems must log the inode to disk whenever the
> > i_version counter changes.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Only btrfs, ext4, and xfs implement it for data changes. Because of
> this, these filesystems must log the inode to disk whenever the
> i_version counter changes. That has a non-zero performance impact,
> especially on write-heavy
47 matches
Mail list logo
