On Wednesday 04 June 2014 13:30:32 Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Tuesday 03 June 2014, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Just ot be pedantic, inodes don't need 96 bit timestamps - some > > > filesystems can *support up to* 96 bit timestamps. If the kernel > > > only supports 64 bit timestamps and that's all the kernel can > > > represent, then the upper bits of the 96 bit on-disk inode > > > timestamps simply remain zero. > > > > I meant the reverse: since we have file systems that can store > > 96-bit timestamps when using 64-bit kernels, we need to extend > > 32-bit kernels to have the same internal representation so we > > can actually read those file systems correctly. > > > > > If you move the filesystem between kernels with different time > > > ranges, then the filesystem needs to be able to tell the kernel what > > > it's supported range is. This is where having the VFS limit the > > > range of supported timestamps is important: the limit is the > > > min(kernel range, filesystem range). This allows the filesystems > > > to be indepenent of the kernel time representation, and the kernel > > > to be independent of the physical filesystem time encoding.... > > > > I agree it makes sense to let the kernel know about the limits > > of the file system it accesses, but for the reverse, we're probably > > better off just making the kernel representation large enough (i.e. > > 96 bits) so it can work with any known file system. > > Depends... 96 bit handling may get prohibitive on 32-bit archs. > > The important point here is for the kernel to be able to represent the > time _range_ used by any known filesystem, not necessarily the time > _precision_. > > For example, a 64 bit representation can be made of 40 bits for seconds > spanning 34865 years, and 24 bits for fractional seconds providing > precision down to 60 nanosecs. That ought to be plenty good on 32 bit > systems while still being cheap to handle. I have checked earlier that we don't do any computation on inode time stamps in common code, we just pass them around, so there is very little runtime overhead. There is a small bit of space overhead (12 byte) per inode, but that structure is already on the order of 500 bytes. For other timekeeping stuff in the kernel, I agree that using some 64-bit representation (nanoseconds, 32/32 unsigned seconds/nanoseconds, ...) has advantages, that's exactly the point I was making earlier against simply extending the internal time_t/timespec to 64-bit seconds for everything. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
