On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 12:39:58AM +0800, Li Xi wrote: >> >> It is obvious that extended attribute implementation has performance >> impact when creating files. That is why we choose to push the patches >> which use internal inode field to save project ID. > > Were you using 256-byte inodes or 128-byte inodes when you benchmarked > using xattr versus an in-inode project quota? We don't change any option when formating ext4, so the inode size is always 256 bytes as default when we were running benchmarks. > > The other major comment I have is that as much as possible, the > semantics should be compatible xfs's project quota. In particular, > this bit: > > A managed tree must be setup initially using the -s option to the > project command. The specified project name or identifier is matched to > one or more trees defined in /etc/projects, and these trees are then > recursively descended to mark the affected inodes as being part of that > tree. This process sets an inode flag and the project identifier on > every file in the affected tree. Once this has been done, new files > created in the tree will automatically be accounted to the tree based > on their project identifier. An attempt to create a hard link to a > file in the tree will only succeed if the project identifier matches > the project identifier for the tree. The xfs_io utility can be used to > set the project ID for an arbitrary file, but this can only be done by > a privileged user. > > Note the hard link restriction. And we should check with the XFS > folks what happens if you move a file from one directory which belongs > to one project quota to another directory which has a different > project quota (or no quota whatsoever). I suspect the right answer is > that the quota gets transferred from one project to another, so that > it is a true directory-tree quota system, but regardless, if we're > going to go down this path, let's stay consistent with how XFS does > things. I agree that compatibility is important. And ofcouse, it would be nice if XFS and Ext4 could have the same semantics of project quota. However, I am wondering whether it is more important for prject quota of ext4 to keep self-consistent instead of keeping consistent with XFS. Given the fact that project indentifier is naturally like UID/GID, project ID should be managed in the similar way like UID/GID. And that is what people are actually doing right now. We already have kuid_t/kgid_t/kprojid_t and a series of similar functions for both UIG/GID and project ID. I don't think it is necessary to break this kind of self-consistency when we are trying to add project quota support. It would be really straightfoward for a new user to understand what project ID and project quota means, if we are able to explain that project quota has exactly the same semantics with user/group quota. User/Group management works well without enforcing unnecessary restrictions. There seems no obvious reason to enforce such restrictions to project too. I guess the idea behind the restrictions of XFS project quota is that inodes belong to different projects should be under different sub-tree. (Sorry if I am wrong, becasue I am confused by its limits aready. But, in this sense, yeah, project quota of XFS is actually a directory-tree quota system.) However, I am wondering whether this limit is really necessary. It is a common use case that different users have seperate home directories and files of a users don't scatter in other users' directory. And this use case is enabled by a little bit of extra system management without enforcing any system-level limit to file operations across users. Since project ID can only be changed by a privileged user, usually the system administrator, there is no difficulty in enforce that projects with different project IDs stay in seperate directory-trees. Comparing to real project quota, another problem of directory-tree quota is the handling of renaming file across directories. Again, it is caused by the unnecessary restriction. In oder to enforce that restriction, there are two solution. First, return an error when renaming files, i.e. do not allow to renaming across projects. Second, do qouta transfer when renaming. Like limit of disallowing links aross projects, the first solution would cause annoying failure which confuses users easily. A simple message about the errno just won't remind users well to realize that it is a project quota limits, let alone the users who don't know project quota well enough. And in the solution, quota transfer would cause significant performance degression, given the fact that rename is a frequently used operation (probably much more frequently than chmod or chgrp) and is widely considered to be atomic and thus light weighted. Another advantage of real project quota without any unnecessary limits is that it is more flexible thus enables more potential use cases. For example, we can easily combine 'find' or 'grep' command and project quota to calculate the total number or disk usage of inodes with common attributes or contents. I am not sure whether it is possible for XFS to so because of its restrictions. The implementation of XFS project quota is a good example and comparison for implementing project quota suport for Ext4. But I don't think it is necessary to take everything of XFS as a standard, because XFS itself doen't implement everything standardly. For example, XFS does not use standard quota framework like Ext4 does and it is still struggling to mapping its internal IDs to standard UID/GID/project ID (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/17/229). In a word, for the developers, real project quota needs less codes, requires less exception handling, and provides better self-consistency. And for the users, it requires less limits, provides cleaner semantics and enables more uses cases. I'd suggest we choose a straightfowrd way to implement project quota rather than restrained by an existing but suboptimum design. Regards, -Li Xi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
