[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] shmem: Add support for using full width of ino_t
Amir Goldstein writes:
>On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Chris Down <> wrote:
>> The new inode64 option now uses get_next_ino_full, which always uses the
>> full width of ino_t (as opposed to get_next_ino, which always uses
>> unsigned int).
>> Using inode64 makes inode number wraparound significantly less likely,
>> at the cost of making some features that rely on the underlying
>> filesystem not setting any of the highest 32 bits (eg. overlayfs' xino)
>> not usable.
>That's not an accurate statement. overlayfs xino just needs some high
>bits available. Therefore I never had any objection to having tmpfs use
>64bit ino values (from overlayfs perspective). My only objection is to
>use the same pool "irresponsibly" instead of per-sb pool for the heavy

Per-sb get_next_ino is fine, but seems less important if inode64 is used. Or is
your point about people who would still be using inode32?

I think things have become quite unclear in previous discussions, so I want to
make sure we're all on the same page here. Are you saying you would
theoretically ack the following series?

1. Recycle volatile slabs in tmpfs/hugetlbfs
2. Make get_next_ino per-sb
3. Make get_next_ino_full (which is also per-sb)
4. Add inode{32,64} to tmpfs

To keep this thread as high signal as possible, I'll avoid sending any other
patches until I hear back on that :-)

Thanks again,


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-27 17:37    [W:0.030 / U:3.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site