On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:10:31PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > After some digging, I found that this was being caused by tmpfs not having a > > time granularity set, thus inheriting the default 1s granularity. > That's a great little discovery, and a very good report and analysis: > thank you. Seems tmpfs got missed when s_time_gran was added in 2.6.11, > and I (tmpfs maintainer) failed to notice that patch going past. Ah, ok, it was mentioned to me there was a maintainer for tmpfs, but I found no mention of you in the tmpfs source, or MAINTAINERS. Maybe submit a patch ;-). > Perhaps we could devise a debug WARN_ON somewhere to check consistent > granularity; but I don't have the ingenuity right now, and would need > an additional superblock field or flag to not spam the logs horribly. > Perhaps it's easier just to delete CURRENT_TIME, converting its users. Yes, I'd agree that replacing CURRENT_TIME in filesystems with current_fs_time should be worthwhile for all filesystems - That, combined with your patch below to ensure they all use s_time_gran, should ensure safety. A total removal of CURRENT_TIME wouldn't work, there are a few other users besides setting [acm]times - however as above, we should be able to kill it for all filesystems. However CURRENT_TIME_SEC looks safe to convert, all of it's users are filesystems. > Setting that safety aside, the patch below (against 2.6.17-rc6) looks > to me like all that's currently needed in mainline - but ecryptfs and > reiser4 in the mm tree will also want fixing, and more discrepancies > are sure to trickle in later. I checked at well, and this does cover every filesystem I see in the mainline. > If anyone thinks tmpfs is the most important to fix (I would think > that, wouldn't I?), I can forward your fix to Linus ahead of the rest. > Or if people agree the patch below is good, I can sign it off and send; > or FS maintainers extract their own little parts. I'd appreciate it tmpfs either of the fixes actually making it to 2.6.17, there are a reasonable number of Gentoo users that use tmpfs as temporary storage to compile stuff, and there's a long-standing argument that tmpfs wasn't safe for that, due to this bug ;-). Acked-By: Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@xxxxxxxxxx> [snip] -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : robbat2@xxxxxxxxxx GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
Attachment:
pgpHZVwiFzwcd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
