[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH-v2 3/5] vfs: don't let the dirty time inodes get more than a

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 3/5] vfs: don't let the dirty time inodes get more than a day stale
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:27:21 +0100
Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rasmusvillemoes.dk; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=bH05vdaYW5T6/s0oAGHXLccM9dyxRJVXyQ0YIQl6PLA=; b=QAIdqT290ysNJf8VEWlxd/EMXIFL+ZSdTh+FOJ3B7esewXcFsRfEvDlFt2toVMcn09 D8vvwCEm5yu2lirQFvxTBQ3mDFHxe4VGiiuW6uHC88ZNTGrm5iAPHYl834CjKyd9xaqQ YLNsxLyGU6Q+trcLi1eLbxMxHYarPnYNCifg8=
In-reply-to: <1416675267-2191-4-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> (Theodore Ts'o's message of "Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:54:25 -0500")
Organization: D03
References: <1416675267-2191-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <1416675267-2191-4-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
On Sat, Nov 22 2014, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Guarantee that the on-disk timestamps will be no more than 24 hours
> stale.
>  static int update_time(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *time, int flags)
>  {
> +     unsigned short days_since_boot = jiffies / (HZ * 86400);
>       int ret;

This seems to wrap every 49 days (assuming 32 bit jiffies and HZ==1000),
so on-disk updates can be delayed indefinitely, assuming just the right
delays between writes.

>       if (inode->i_op->update_time) {
> @@ -1527,14 +1528,27 @@ static int update_time(struct inode *inode, struct 
> timespec *time, int flags)
>               if (flags & S_MTIME)
>                       inode->i_mtime = *time;
>       }
> -     if (inode->i_sb->s_flags & MS_LAZYTIME) {
> +     /*
> +      * If i_ts_dirty_day is zero, then either we have not deferred
> +      * timestamp updates, or the system has been up for less than
> +      * a day (so days_since_boot is zero), so we defer timestamp
> +      * updates in that case and set the I_DIRTY_TIME flag.  If a
> +      * day or more has passed, then i_ts_dirty_day will be
> +      * different from days_since_boot, and then we should update
> +      * the on-disk inode and then we can clear i_ts_dirty_day.
> +      */

AFAICT days_since_boot is not actually 0 immediately after boot
due to 

#define INITIAL_JIFFIES ((unsigned long)(unsigned int) (-300*HZ))

On 32 bit platforms, days_since_boot will be 0 shortly after, while on
64 bit it will always be >= 49. Not exactly sure how this affects the
above logic.

Would it make sense to introduce days_since_boot as a global variable
and avoid these issues? This would presumably also make update_time a
few cycles faster (avoiding a division-by-constant), but not sure if
that's important. And something of course needs to update
days_since_boot, but that should be doable.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>