Re: Nanosecond fs timestamp support: sad
Date: Fri Jul 22 2011 - 18:59:37 EST
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:31:58 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 06:10:39PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:47:32PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:11:42PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 22:59 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > Indeed. Only usefully exists on ext4 and requires extra system calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure what you mean? It's in stat(2), just like the timestamps.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anything that looks like a version or generation number in
> > > > either the man pages, the asm-generic/stat.h, or glibc's asm/stat.h.
> > > > Pointer?
> > >
> > > Hmm you're right. I thought it was in there, but apparently not.
> > > I think it should be added there though. We still have some unused
> > > fields.
> > But last I checked I thought it was only ext4 that actually incremented
> > the i_version on IO, and even then only when given a (non-default) mount
> > option.
> > My notes on what needs to be done there:
> > - collect data to determine whether turning on i_version causes
> > any significant performance regressions.
> > - Last I talked to him, Ted Tso recommended running
> > Bonnie on a local disk, since it does a lot of little
> > writes, which is somewhat of a worst case, as it will
> > generate extra metadata updates for each write.
> > Compare total wall-clock time, number of iops, and
> > number of bytes (using some kind of block tracing).
> > - If there aren't any problems, turn it on by default, and we're
> > done.
> (Well,and talk the other filesystem implementors into doing it.)
But does anyone apart from NFSv4 actually *want* i_version as opposed to the
more-generally-useful precise timestamps?
If not, we probably should tell NFSv4 to use timestamps and focus on making
them work well.
The timestamp used doesn't need to update ever nanosecond. I think if it
were just updated on every userspace->kernel transition (or effective
equivalents inside kernel threads) that would be enough capture all
causality. I wonder how that would be achieved.. I wonder if RCU machinery
could help - doesn't it keep track of when threads schedule ... or something?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/