[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH-v4 2/7] vfs: add support for a lazytime mount option

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4 2/7] vfs: add support for a lazytime mount option
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:19:54 -0500
Cc: Linux Filesystem Development List <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux btrfs Developers List <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Developers <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=qFlsdkLPu5r1+aPLrEhsGCv4B4iLaHLYtrccRM/cnLQ=; b=V4qEKVH2/j/RMGJFZ65kYXzg1XRK1XEXBS2zh9gOO5C7EBQqe9j1t39JZVJLCBrABBSXIhzxtUyvEg0v8Uh2VLIixzh6XxspRuKTG2yQ3sZw6aCK2tQxDlr16wr2A+0p078ZpSpEd1mnRQ1PJjP71weyhgM1sTOwBnS+Ig2SX0o=;
In-reply-to: <20141127131421.GE30152@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1416997437-26092-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <1416997437-26092-3-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <20141127131421.GE30152@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:14:21PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Looking into the code & your patch I'd prefer to do something like:
> * add support for I_DIRTY_TIME in __mark_inode_dirty() - update_time will
>   call __mark_inode_dirty() with this flag if any of the times was updated.
>   That way we can just remove your ->write_time() callback - filesystems
>   can just handle this in their ->dirty_inode() methods if they wish.
>   __mark_inode_dirty() will take care of moving inode into proper writeback
>   list (i_dirty / i_dirty_time), dirtied_when will be set to current time.

One of the tricky bits about this is that btrfs wants to be able to
return an error from write_time() which gets reflected up through
update_time() to the callers of file_update_time().  Currently
__mark_inode_dirty() and family return a void, and changing this is
going to be a bit of a mess, since doing this correctly would require
auditing all of the callers of mark_inode_dirty(),
mark_inode_dirty_sync(), __mark_inode_dirty(), etc.

Doing this would be a good thing, and eventually I think it would be
nice if we could allow the mark_inode_dirty() functions return an
error instead of void, but I wonder if that's a cleanup that's better
saved for later.  While we were at it, maybe we should rename
mark_inode_dirty() to inode_dirty(), since that way we can be sure
we've looked at all of the call site of mark_inode_dirty() and friends
--- and we have a number of file systems, including btrfs, ext3, and
ext4, where mark_inode_dirty() is doing a lot more than just marking
the inode is dirty, and the only reason why it's named that is mostly

                                                - Ted

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