On Thu 27-11-14 10:35:37, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:10:44PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:23:56AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > >> Add an optimization for the MS_LAZYTIME mount option so that we will > > >> opportunistically write out any inodes with the I_DIRTY_TIME flag set > > >> in a particular inode table block when we need to update some inode > > >> in that inode table block anyway. > > >> > > >> Also add some temporary code so that we can set the lazytime mount > > >> option without needing a modified /sbin/mount program which can set > > >> MS_LAZYTIME. We can eventually make this go away once util-linux has > > >> added support. > > >> > > >> Google-Bug-Id: 18297052 > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > >> --- > > >> fs/ext4/inode.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > >> fs/ext4/super.c | 9 +++++++++ > > >> include/trace/events/ext4.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> 3 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c > > >> index 5653fa4..8308c82 100644 > > >> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c > > >> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c > > >> @@ -4140,6 +4140,51 @@ static int ext4_inode_blocks_set(handle_t *handle, > > >> } > > >> > > >> /* > > >> + * Opportunistically update the other time fields for other inodes in > > >> + * the same inode table block. > > >> + */ > > >> +static void ext4_update_other_inodes_time(struct super_block *sb, > > >> + unsigned long orig_ino, char *buf) > > >> +{ > > >> + struct ext4_inode_info *ei; > > >> + struct ext4_inode *raw_inode; > > >> + unsigned long ino; > > >> + struct inode *inode; > > >> + int i, inodes_per_block = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_inodes_per_block; > > >> + int inode_size = EXT4_INODE_SIZE(sb); > > >> + > > >> + ino = orig_ino & ~(inodes_per_block - 1); > > >> + for (i = 0; i < inodes_per_block; i++, ino++, buf += inode_size) { > > >> + if (ino == orig_ino) > > >> + continue; > > >> + inode = find_active_inode_nowait(sb, ino); > > >> + if (!inode || > > >> + (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) == 0 || > > >> + !spin_trylock(&inode->i_lock)) { > > >> + iput(inode); > > >> + continue; > > >> + } > > >> + inode->i_state &= ~I_DIRTY_TIME; > > >> + inode->i_ts_dirty_day = 0; > > >> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > > >> + inode_requeue_dirtytime(inode); > > >> + > > >> + ei = EXT4_I(inode); > > >> + raw_inode = (struct ext4_inode *) buf; > > >> + > > >> + spin_lock(&ei->i_raw_lock); > > >> + EXT4_INODE_SET_XTIME(i_ctime, inode, raw_inode); > > >> + EXT4_INODE_SET_XTIME(i_mtime, inode, raw_inode); > > >> + EXT4_INODE_SET_XTIME(i_atime, inode, raw_inode); > > >> + ext4_inode_csum_set(inode, raw_inode, ei); > > >> + spin_unlock(&ei->i_raw_lock); > > >> + trace_ext4_other_inode_update_time(inode, orig_ino); > > >> + iput(inode); > > >> + } > > >> +} > > > > > > Am I right in that this now does unlogged timestamp updates of > > > inodes? What happens when that buffer gets overwritten by log > > > recover after a crash? The timestamp updates get lost? > > > > > > FYI, XFS has had all sorts of nasty log recovery corner cases > > > caused by log recovery overwriting non-logged inode updates like > > > this. In the past few years we've removed every single non-logged > > > inode update "optimisation" so that all changes (including timestamps) > > > are transactional so inode state on disk not matching what log > > > recovery wrote to disk for all the other inode metadata... > > > > > > Optimistic unlogged inode updates are a slippery slope, and history > > > tells me that it doesn't lead to a nice place.... > > > > Since ext4/jbd2 is logging the whole block, unlike XFS which is doing > > logical journaling, this isn't an unlogged update. It is just taking > > advantage of the fact that the whole block is going to be logged and > > written to the disk anyway. > > Urk - that's worse, isn't it? i.e the code above calls iput() from > within a current transaction context? What happens if that drops > the last reference to the inode and it gets evicted due to racing > with an unlink? Won't that try to start another transaction to free > the inode (i.e. through ext4_evict_inode())? Yeah, the patch looks buggy (and racy wrt concurrent updates of time stamps as well). I think if we want to do this optimization, we would need a function like "clear inode dirty bits for this range of inode numbers". That is doable atomically within VFS and although it looks somewhat ugly, the performance -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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