On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:43:32AM +1000, 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. I was sort of ignoring the distinction between concatenate(A,B) and A*m+B, but, sure, multiplying's probably better. > 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. i_version and the NFSv4 change attribute are 64 bits which gives us a fair amount of flexibility. > 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'. I'm not sure how to model the costs. Something like that might work. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
