[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/2] tmpfs: Add per-superblock i_ino support
> Chris, Amir, thank you both for all the work you have been putting
> into this over the holiday. I'm only now catching up, sorry.
> It appears that what you are ending up with above is very close to
> the patch Google has been using for several years. I'm glad Chris
> has explored some interesting options, disappointed that you had no
> more success than I had in trying to solve it efficiently with 32-bit
> inos, agree with the way in which Amir cut it back. That we've come to
> the same conclusions independently is good confirmation of this approach.

Indeed :)

> Only yesterday did I get to see that Amir had asked to see my patch on
> the 27th: rediffed against 5.5-rc5, appended now below. I'm showing it,
> though it's known deficient in three ways (not to mention lack of config
> or mount options, but I now see Dave Chinner has an interesting take on
> those) - better make it visible to you now, than me delay you further.
> It does indicate a couple of improvements to Chris's current patch:
> reducing use of stat_lock, as Amir suggested (in both nr_inodes limited
> and unlimited cases); and need to fix shmem_encode_fh(), which neither
> of us did yet. Where we should go from here, fix Chris's or fix mine,
> I've not decided.

I vote in favor or best of both patches to result in a simpler outcome:
1. use inop approach from Hugh's patch
2. use get_next_ino() instead of per-sb ino_batch for kern_mount

Hugh, do you have any evidence or suspect that shmem_file_setup()
could be contributing to depleting the global get_next_ino pool?
Do you have an objection to the combination above?

> From: Hugh Dickins <>
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 20:08:53 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] tmpfs: provide 64-bit inode numbers
> Some programs (including and clang) try to deduplicate opened
> files by comparing st_dev and st_ino, which breaks down when two files
> on the same tmpfs have the same inode number: we are now hitting this
> problem too often. J. R. Okajima has reported the same problem with
> backup tools.
> tmpfs is currently sharing the same 32-bit get_next_ino() pool as
> sockets, pipes, ramfs, hugetlbfs etc. It delivers 32-bit inos even
> on a 64-bit kernel for one reason: because if a 32-bit executable
> compiled without _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 tries to stat a file with an
> ino which won't fit in 32 bits, glibc fails that with EOVERFLOW.
> glibc is being correct, but unhelpful: so 2.6.22 commit 866b04fccbf1
> ("inode numbering: make static counters in new_inode and iunique be
> 32 bits") forced get_next_ino() to unsigned int.
> But whatever the upstream need to avoid surprising a mis-built
> 32-bit executable, Google production can be sure of the 64-bit
> environment, and any remaining 32-bit executables built with
> _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 (our files are sometimes bigger than 2G).
> So, leave get_next_ino() as it is, but convert tmpfs to supply
> unsigned long inos, and let each superblock keep its own account:
> it was weird to be sharing a pool with such disparate uses before.
> shmem_reserve_inode() already provides a good place to do this;
> and normally it has to take stat_lock to update free_inodes, so
> no overhead to increment its next_ino under the same lock. But
> if it's the internal shm_mnt, or mounted with "nr_inodes=0" to
> increase scalability by avoiding that stat_lock, then use the
> same percpu batching technique as get_next_ino().
> Take on board 4.2 commit 2adc376c5519 ("vfs: avoid creation of
> inode number 0 in get_next_ino"): for safety, skip any ino whose
> low 32 bits is 0.
> Upstream? That's tougher: maybe try to upstream this as is, and
> see what falls out; maybe add ino32 or ino64 mount options before
> trying; or maybe upstream has to stick with the 32-bit ino, and a
> scheme more complicated than this be implemented for tmpfs.
> Not-Yet-Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <>
> 1) Probably needs minor corrections for the 32-bit kernel: I wasn't
> worrying about that at the time, and expect some "unsigned long"s
> I didn't need to change for the 64-bit kernel actually need to be
> "u64"s or "ino_t"s now.
> 2) The "return 1" from shmem_encode_fh() would nowadays be written as
> "return FILEID_INO32_GEN" (and overlayfs takes particular interest
> in that fileid); yet it already put the high 32 bits of the ino into
> the fh: probably needs a different fileid once high 32 bits are set.

Nice spotting, but this really isn't a problem for overlayfs.
I agree that it would be nice to follow the same practice as xfs with
XFS_FILEID_TYPE_64FLAG, but as one can see from the private
flag, this is by no means a standard of any sort.

As the name_to_handle_at() man page says:
"Other than the use of the handle_bytes field, the caller should treat the
file_handle structure as an opaque data type: the handle_type and f_handle
fields are needed only by a subsequent call to open_by_handle_at()."

It is true that one of my initial versions was checking value returned from
encode_fh, but Miklos has pointed out to me that this value is arbitrary
and we shouldn't rely on it.

In current overlayfs, the value FILEID_INO32_GEN is only used internally
to indicate the case where filesystem has no encode_fh op (see comment
above ovl_can_decode_fh()). IOW, only the special case of encoding
by the default export_encode_fh() is considered a proof for 32bit inodes.
So tmpfs has never been considered as a 32bit inodes filesystem by


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-07 09:36    [W:0.050 / U:1.852 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site