On Tuesday July 10, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Yes, thanks. It doesn't actually tell us why we want to implement
> this attribute and it doesn't tell us what the implications of failing
> to do so are, but I guess we can take that on trust from the NFS guys.
You would like to think so, but remember NFSv4 was designed by a
committee :-)
The 'change' number is used for cache consistency, and as the spec
makes very strong statements about the 'change' number, it is very
hard (or impossible) to implement a server correctly without storing a
change number in stable storage (just one of my grips about V4).
>
> But I suspect the ext4 implementation doesn't actually do this. afaict we
> won't update i_version for file overwrites (especially if s_time_gran can
> indeed be 1,000,000,000) and of course for MAP_SHARED modifications. What
> would be the implications of this?
The first part sounds like a bug - i_version should really be updated
by every call to ->commit_write (if that is still what it is called).
The MAP_SHARED thing is less obvious. I guess every time we notice
that the page might have been changed, we need to increment i_version.
>
> And how does the NFS server know that the filesystem implements i_version?
> Will a zero-value of i_version have special significance, telling the
> server to not send this attribute, perhaps?
That is a very important question. Zero probably makes sense, but
what ever it is needs to be agreed and documented.
And just by-the-way, the server doesn't really have the option of not
sending the attribute. If i_version isn't defined, it has to fake
something using mtime, and hope that is good enough.
Alternately we could mandate that i_version is always kept up-to-date
and if a filesystem doesn't have anything to load from storage, it
just sets it to the current time in nanoseconds.
That would mean that a client would need to flush it's cache whenever
the inode fell out of cache on the server, but I don't think we can
reliably do better than that.
I think I like that approach.
So my vote is to increment i_version in common code every time any
change is made to the file, and alloc_inode should initialise it to
current time, which might be changed by the filesystem before it calls
unlock_new_inode.
... but doesn't lustre want to control its i_version... so maybe not :-(
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
