From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com>,
Martin Brandenburg <martin@omnibond.com>,
Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>, Stefan Roesch <shr@fb.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, gfs2@lists.linux.dev,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, devel@lists.orangefs.org,
linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] fs: add support for non-blocking timestamp updates
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 13:42:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2hnq54zc4x2fpxkpuprnrutrwfp3yi5ojntu3e3xfcpeh6ztei@2fwwsemx4y5z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251217061015.923954-9-hch@lst.de>
On Wed 17-12-25 07:09:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Currently file_update_time_flags unconditionally returns -EAGAIN if any
> timestamp needs to be updated and IOCB_NOWAIT is passed. This makes
> non-blocking direct writes impossible on file systems with granular
> enough timestamps.
>
> Add a S_NOWAIT to ask for timestamps to not block, and return -EAGAIN in
> all methods for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
...
> @@ -2110,12 +2110,26 @@ int inode_update_timestamps(struct inode *inode, int *flags)
> now = inode_set_ctime_current(inode);
> if (!timespec64_equal(&now, &ctime))
> updated |= S_CTIME;
> - if (!timespec64_equal(&now, &mtime)) {
> - inode_set_mtime_to_ts(inode, now);
> + if (!timespec64_equal(&now, &mtime))
> updated |= S_MTIME;
> +
> + if (IS_I_VERSION(inode)) {
> + if (*flags & S_NOWAIT) {
> + /*
> + * Error out if we'd need timestamp updates, as
> + * the generally requires blocking to dirty the
> + * inode in one form or another.
> + */
> + if (updated && inode_iversion_need_inc(inode))
> + goto bail;
I'm confused here. What the code does is that if S_NOWAIT is set and
i_version needs increment we bail. However the comment as well as the
changelog speaks about timestamps needing update and not about i_version.
And intuitively I agree that if any timestamp is updated, inode needs
dirtying and thus we should bail regardless of whether i_version is updated
as well or not. What am I missing?
Honza
> + } else {
> + if (inode_maybe_inc_iversion(inode, updated))
> + updated |= S_VERSION;
> + }
> }
> - if (IS_I_VERSION(inode) && inode_maybe_inc_iversion(inode, updated))
> - updated |= S_VERSION;
> +
> + if (updated & S_MTIME)
> + inode_set_mtime_to_ts(inode, now);
> } else {
> now = current_time(inode);
> }
> @@ -2131,6 +2145,9 @@ int inode_update_timestamps(struct inode *inode, int *flags)
>
> *flags = updated;
> return 0;
> +bail:
> + *flags = 0;
> + return -EAGAIN;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(inode_update_timestamps);
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-17 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-17 6:09 re-enable IOCB_NOWAIT writes to files v3 Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 01/10] fs: remove inode_update_time Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 02/10] fs: allow error returns from generic_update_time Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 03/10] fs: exit early in generic_update_time when there is no work Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 04/10] fs: factor out a mark_inode_dirty_time helper Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 05/10] fs: allow error returns from inode_update_timestamps Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 12:23 ` Jan Kara
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 06/10] fs: factor out a sync_lazytime helper Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 12:26 ` Jan Kara
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 07/10] fs: add a ->sync_lazytime method Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 12:30 ` Jan Kara
2025-12-18 6:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 08/10] fs: add support for non-blocking timestamp updates Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 12:42 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2025-12-18 6:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-19 15:12 ` Jan Kara
2025-12-22 23:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 09/10] xfs: implement ->sync_lazytime Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-17 6:09 ` [PATCH 10/10] xfs: enable non-blocking timestamp updates Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2hnq54zc4x2fpxkpuprnrutrwfp3yi5ojntu3e3xfcpeh6ztei@2fwwsemx4y5z \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=devel@lists.orangefs.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=gfs2@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=hubcap@omnibond.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin@omnibond.com \
--cc=shr@fb.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox