From: Stefan Roesch <[email protected]>
To: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/16] fs: split off need_file_update_time and do_file_update_time
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:28:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220517134049.tfxbsbdscalblsmv@wittgenstein>
On 5/17/22 6:40 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 09:47:09AM -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote:
>> This splits off the functions need_file_update_time() and
>> do_file_update_time() from the function file_update_time().
>>
>> This is required to support async buffered writes.
>> No intended functional changes in this patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roesch <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/inode.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
>> index a6d70a1983f8..1d0b02763e98 100644
>> --- a/fs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/inode.c
>> @@ -2054,35 +2054,22 @@ int file_remove_privs(struct file *file)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(file_remove_privs);
>>
>> -/**
>> - * file_update_time - update mtime and ctime time
>> - * @file: file accessed
>> - *
>> - * Update the mtime and ctime members of an inode and mark the inode
>> - * for writeback. Note that this function is meant exclusively for
>> - * usage in the file write path of filesystems, and filesystems may
>> - * choose to explicitly ignore update via this function with the
>> - * S_NOCMTIME inode flag, e.g. for network filesystem where these
>> - * timestamps are handled by the server. This can return an error for
>> - * file systems who need to allocate space in order to update an inode.
>> - */
>> -
>> -int file_update_time(struct file *file)
>> +static int need_file_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct file *file,
>> + struct timespec64 *now)
>
> I think file_need_update_time() is easier to understand.
>
I renamed the function to file_needs_update_time().
>> {
>> - struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
>> - struct timespec64 now;
>> int sync_it = 0;
>> - int ret;
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(file->f_mode & FMODE_NOCMTIME))
>> + return 0;
>
> Moving this into this generic helper and using the generic helper
> directly in file_update_atime() leads to a change in behavior for
> file_update_time() callers. Currently they'd get time settings updated
> even if FMODE_NOCMTIME is set but with this change they'd not get it
> updated anymore if FMODE_NOCMTIME is set. Am I reading this right?
>
Correct, this was not intended and will be addressed with the next version of the patch.
> Is this a bugfix? And if so it should be split into a separate commit...
>
>>
>> /* First try to exhaust all avenues to not sync */
>> if (IS_NOCMTIME(inode))
>> return 0;
>>
>> - now = current_time(inode);
>> - if (!timespec64_equal(&inode->i_mtime, &now))
>> + if (!timespec64_equal(&inode->i_mtime, now))
>> sync_it = S_MTIME;
>>
>> - if (!timespec64_equal(&inode->i_ctime, &now))
>> + if (!timespec64_equal(&inode->i_ctime, now))
>> sync_it |= S_CTIME;
>>
>> if (IS_I_VERSION(inode) && inode_iversion_need_inc(inode))
>> @@ -2091,15 +2078,49 @@ int file_update_time(struct file *file)
>> if (!sync_it)
>> return 0;
>>
>> + return sync_it;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int do_file_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct file *file,
>> + struct timespec64 *now, int sync_mode)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> /* Finally allowed to write? Takes lock. */
>> if (__mnt_want_write_file(file))
>> return 0;
>>
>> - ret = inode_update_time(inode, &now, sync_it);
>> + ret = inode_update_time(inode, now, sync_mode);
>> __mnt_drop_write_file(file);
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> Maybe
>
> static int __file_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct file *file,
> struct timespec64 *now, int sync_mode)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> /* try to update time settings */
> if (!__mnt_want_write_file(file)) {
> ret = inode_update_time(inode, now, sync_mode);
> __mnt_drop_write_file(file);
> }
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> reads a little easier and the old comment is a bit confusing imho. I'd
> just say we keep it short.
>
I made the change.
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * file_update_time - update mtime and ctime time
>> + * @file: file accessed
>> + *
>> + * Update the mtime and ctime members of an inode and mark the inode
>> + * for writeback. Note that this function is meant exclusively for
>> + * usage in the file write path of filesystems, and filesystems may
>> + * choose to explicitly ignore update via this function with the
>> + * S_NOCMTIME inode flag, e.g. for network filesystem where these
>> + * timestamps are handled by the server. This can return an error for
>> + * file systems who need to allocate space in order to update an inode.
>> + */
>> +
>> +int file_update_time(struct file *file)
>
> My same lame complaint as before to make this kernel-doc. :)
>
> /**
> * file_update_time - update mtime and ctime time
> * @file: file accessed
> *
> * Update the mtime and ctime members of an inode and mark the inode or
> * writeback. Note that this function is meant exclusively for sage in
> * the file write path of filesystems, and filesystems may hoose to
> * explicitly ignore update via this function with the _NOCMTIME inode
> * flag, e.g. for network filesystem where these imestamps are handled
> * by the server. This can return an error for ile systems who need to
> * allocate space in order to update an inode.
> *
> * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure.
> */
> int file_update_time(struct file *file)
>
I added the above kernel documentation, I only fixed a couple of typos.
>> +{
>> + int err;
>> + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
>> + struct timespec64 now = current_time(inode);
>> +
>> + err = need_file_update_time(inode, file, &now);
>> + if (err < 0)
>> + return err;
>
> I may misread this but shouldn't this be err <= 0, i.e., if it returns 0
> then we don't need to update time?
>
Good catch. Fixed.
>> +
>> + return do_file_update_time(inode, file, &now, err);
>> +}
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(file_update_time);
>>
>> /* Caller must hold the file's inode lock */
>> @@ -2108,6 +2129,7 @@ int file_modified(struct file *file)
>> int ret;
>> struct dentry *dentry = file_dentry(file);
>> struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
>> + struct timespec64 now = current_time(inode);
>>
>> /*
>> * Clear the security bits if the process is not being run by root.
>> @@ -2122,10 +2144,11 @@ int file_modified(struct file *file)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> - if (unlikely(file->f_mode & FMODE_NOCMTIME))
>> - return 0;
>> + ret = need_file_update_time(inode, file, &now);
>> + if (ret <= 0)
>> + return ret;
>>
>> - return file_update_time(file);
>> + return do_file_update_time(inode, file, &now, ret);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(file_modified);
>>
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-18 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-16 16:47 [RFC PATCH v2 00/16] io-uring/xfs: support async buffered writes Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/16] block: add check for async buffered writes to generic_write_checks Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 23:43 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-05-18 23:20 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/16] iomap: add iomap_page_create_gfp to allocate iomap_pages Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/16] iomap: use iomap_page_create_gfp() in __iomap_write_begin Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 23:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-05-18 23:21 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/16] iomap: add async buffered write support Stefan Roesch
2022-05-17 11:14 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-18 23:19 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/16] xfs: add iomap " Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/16] fs: split off need_remove_file_privs() do_remove_file_privs() Stefan Roesch
2022-05-17 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2022-05-18 23:25 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/16] fs: split off need_file_update_time and do_file_update_time Stefan Roesch
2022-05-17 11:20 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-18 23:21 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-17 13:40 ` Christian Brauner
2022-05-18 23:28 ` Stefan Roesch [this message]
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/16] fs: add pending file update time flag Stefan Roesch
2022-05-17 11:28 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-17 13:48 ` Christian Brauner
2022-05-18 23:23 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/16] xfs: enable async write file modification handling Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/16] xfs: add async buffered write support Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/16] io_uring: add support for async buffered writes Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/16] mm: factor out _balance_dirty_pages() from balance_dirty_pages() Stefan Roesch
2022-05-18 11:07 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-18 23:31 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/16] mm: add balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_flags() function Stefan Roesch
2022-05-17 20:12 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-18 23:29 ` Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/16] iomap: use balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_flags in iomap_write_iter Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/16] io_uring: add tracepoint for short writes Stefan Roesch
2022-05-16 16:47 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/16] xfs: enable async buffered write support Stefan Roesch
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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