[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tmpfs: use ida to get inode number

On 2019/11/21 12:52, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, zhengbin (A) wrote:
>> On 2019/11/20 23:45, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:23:18PM +0800, zhengbin wrote:
>>>> I have tried to change last_ino type to unsigned long, while this was
>>>> rejected, see details on
>>> Did you end up trying sbitmap?
>> Maybe sbitmap is not a good solution, max_inodes of tmpfs are controlled by mount options--nrinodes,
>> which can be modified by remountfs(bigger or smaller), as the comment of function sbitmap_resize says:
>>  * Doesn't reallocate anything. It's up to the caller to ensure that the new
>>  * depth doesn't exceed the depth that the sb was initialized with.
>> We can modify this to meet the growing requirements, there will still be questions as follows:
>> 1. tmpfs is a ram filesystem, we need to allocate sbitmap memory for sbinfo->max_inodes(while this maybe huge)
>> 2.If remountfs changes  max_inode, we have to deal with it, while this may take a long time
>> (bigger: we need to free the old sbitmap memory, allocate new memory, copy the old sbitmap to new sbitmap
>> smaller: How do we deal with it?ie: we use sb->map[inode number/8] to find the sbitmap, we need to change the exist
>> inode numbers?while this maybe used by userspace application.)
>>> What I think is fundamentally wrong with this patch is that you've found a
>>> problem in get_next_ino() and decided to use a different scheme for this
>>> one filesystem, leaving every other filesystem which uses get_next_ino()
>>> facing the same problem.
>>> That could be acceptable if you explained why tmpfs is fundamentally
>>> different from all the other filesystems that use get_next_ino(), but
>>> you haven't (and I don't think there is such a difference. eg pipes,
>>> autofs and ipc mqueue could all have the same problem.
>> tmpfs is same with all the other filesystems that use get_next_ino(), but we need to solve this problem one by one.
>> If tmpfs is ok, we can modify the other filesystems too. Besides, I do not  recommend all file systems share the same
>> global variable, for performance impact consideration.
>>> There are some other problems I noticed, but they're not worth bringing
>>> up until this fundamental design choice is justified.
>> Agree, thanks.
> Just a rushed FYI without looking at your patch or comments.
> Internally (in Google) we do rely on good tmpfs inode numbers more
> than on those of other get_next_ino() filesystems, and carry a patch
> to mm/shmem.c for it to use 64-bit inode numbers (and separate inode
> number space for each superblock) - essentially,
> ino = sbinfo->next_ino++;
> /* Avoid 0 in the low 32 bits: might appear deleted */
> if (unlikely((unsigned int)ino == 0))
> ino = sbinfo->next_ino++;
> Which I think would be faster, and need less memory, than IDA.
> But whether that is of general interest, or of interest to you,
> depends upon how prevalent 32-bit executables built without
> __FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 still are these days.

So how google think about this? inode number > 32-bit, but 32-bit executables

cat not handle this? "separate inode number space for each superblock" can reduce the

probability, but still can not solve it.

> Hugh

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-21 07:47    [W:0.144 / U:8.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site