On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:30:21PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 14-05-12 19:54:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 05:33:04PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > I said as much in another reply - that once i_version is used on
> > > a filesystem, it should be made "sticky" (i.e. permanently enabled
> > > for that filesystem). However, until that time it shouldn't be
> > > enabled just because it might one day be used.
> > >
> > > Even better than just blindly bumping the i_version on every change,
> > > it would be better to have users of i_version (i.e. knfsd) flag the
> > > inode with "needs i_version update" then read the version. When the
> > > filesystem/VFS bumps i_version the next time it can clear this flag
> > > and not update i_version again until after the next time i_version
> > > is actually used.
> >
> > I really don't want to do anything more complicated than necessary.
> >
> > What would be the worst-case test for the extra inode dirtying, so we
> > can see what the numbers actually are?
> Something like:
>
> int fd, i;
> struct timeval tv[2];
>
> fd = open("file", O_CREAT | O_RDWR, 0644);
> if (fd < 0)
> return 1;
> for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
> gettimeofday(tv);
> tv[1] = tv[0];
> if (futimes(fd, tv) < 0)
> return 1;
> }
> return 0;
>
> And see how long does it take with and without i_version?
The complaint I hear from Andreas is that we'll cause file_update_time()
to call mark_inode_dirty() more often.
I don't believe futimes() calls file_update_time().
So maybe replace that futimes() by a one-byte write?
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
