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 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 counter" and "inode i_version". We increment
>> >> > > > "superblock crash counter" whenever we detect unclean filesystem shutdown.
>> >> > > > That way after a crash we are guaranteed each inode will report new
>> >> > > > i_version (the sum would probably have to look like "superblock crash
>> >> > > > counter" * 65536 + "inode i_version" so that we avoid reusing possible
>> >> > > > i_version numbers we gave away but did not write to disk but still...).
>> >> > > > Thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > How hard is this for filesystems to support? Do they need an on-disk
>> >> > format change to keep track of the crash counter? Maybe not, maybe the
>> >> > high bits of the i_version counters are all they need.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > We could consider using the current time instead. So, put the current
>> > time (or time of last boot, or this inode's ctime, or something) in the
>> > high bits of the change attribute, and keep the low bits as a counter.
>>
>> This is a very different proposal.
>> I don't think Jan was suggesting that the i_version be split into two
>> bit fields, one the change-counter and one the crash-counter.
>> Rather, the crash-counter was multiplied by a large-number and added to
>> the change-counter with the expectation that while not ever
>> change-counter landed on disk, at least 1 in every large-number would.
>> So after each crash we effectively add large-number to the
>> change-counter, and can be sure that number hasn't been used already.
>
> Yes, that was my thinking.
>
>> To store the crash-counter in each inode (which does appeal) you would
>> need to be able to remove it before adding the new crash counter, and
>> that requires bit-fields. Maybe there are enough bits.
>
> Furthermore you'd have a potential problem that you need to change
> i_version on disk just because you are reading after a crash and such
> changes tend to be problematic (think of read-only mounts and stuff like
> that).
>
>> 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. Odd i_versions might have been changed
>> recently and crash-count*large-number needs to be added.
>> Even i_versions have not been changed recently and nothing need be
>> added.
>>
>> If you want to change a file with an even i_version, you subtract
>> crash-count*large-number
>> to the i_version, then set lsb. This is written to stable storage before
>> the change.
>>
>> If a file has not been changed for a while, you can add
>> crash-count*large-number
>> and clear lsb.
>>
>> The lsb of the i_version would be for internal use only. It would not
>> be visible outside the filesystem.
>>
>> It feels a bit clunky, but I think it would work and is the best
>> combination of Jan's idea and your requirement.
>> The biggest cost would be switching to 'odd' before an changes, and the
>> unknown is when does it make sense to switch to 'even'.
>
> Well, there is also a problem that you would need to somehow remember with
> which 'crash count' the i_version has been previously reported as that is
> not stored on disk with my scheme. So I don't think we can easily use your
> scheme.
I don't think there is a problem here.... maybe I didn't explain
properly or something.
I'm assuming there is a crash-count that is stored once per filesystem.
This might be a disk-format change, or maybe the "Last checked" time
could be used with ext4 (that is a bit horrible though).
Every on-disk i_version has a flag to choose between:
- use this number as it is, but update it on-disk before any change
- add multiple of current crash-count to this number before use.
If you crash during an update, the i_version is thus automatically
increased.
To change from the first option to the second option you subtract the
multiple of the current crash-count (which might make the stored
i_version negative), and flip the bit.
To change from the second option to the first, you add the multiple
of the current crash-count, and flip the bit.
In each case, the externally visible i_version does not change.
Nothing needs to be stored except the per-inode i_version and the per-fs
crash_count.
>
> So the options we have are:
>
> 1) Keep i_version as is, make clients also check for i_ctime.
> Pro: No on-disk format changes.
> Cons: After a crash, i_version can go backwards (but when file changes
> i_version, i_ctime pair should be still different) or not, data can be
> old or not.
I like to think of this approach as using the i_version as an extension
to the i_ctime.
i_ctime doesn't necessarily change on every file modification, either
because it is not a modification that is meant to change i_ctime, or
because i_ctime doesn't have the resolution to show a very small change
in time, or because the clock that is used to update i_ctime doesn't
have much resolution.
So when a change happens, if the stored c_time changes, set i_version to
zero, otherwise increment i_version.
Then the externally visible i-version is a combination of the stored
c_time and the stored i_version.
If you only used 1-second ctime resolution for versioning purposes, you
could provide a 64bit i_version as 34 bits of ctime and 30 bits of
changes-in-one-second.
It is important that the resolution of ctime used is less that the
fastest possible restart after a crash.
I don't think that i_version going backwards should be a problem, as
long as an old version means exactly the same old data. Presumably
journalling would ensure that the data and ctime/version are updated
atomically.
>
> 2) Fsync when reporting i_version.
> Pro: No on-disk format changes, strong consistency of i_version and
> data.
> Cons: Difficult to implement for filesystems due to locking constrains.
> High performance overhead or i_version reporting.
This reminds me of the old ext3 fsync-when-renaming a file. People
might depend on it for all the wrong reasons, and other people might
studiously avoid it due to the performance implications.
>
> 3) Some variant of crash counter.
> Pro: i_version cannot go backwards.
> Cons: Requires on-disk format changes. After a crash data can be old
> (however i_version increased).
If it is essential for i_version to always go forward, then I think this
is the best approach.
If an i_version reset can be tolerated, then I think a
time-plus-version-count approach is likely to be best.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
