Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] timekeeping: new interfaces for multigrain timestamp handing

Dave Chinner
2023-11-01T23:29:13Z

On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 09:34:57PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 10:10 -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The above does not expose *any* changes to timestamps to users, and
> > should work across a wide variety of filesystems, without requiring
> > any special code from the filesystem itself.
> >
> > And now please all jump on me and say "No, Linus, that won't work,
> > because XYZ".
> >
> > Because it is *entirely* possible that I missed something truly
> > fundamental, and the above is completely broken for some obvious
> > reason that I just didn't think of.
> >
>
> My client writes to the file and immediately reads the ctime. A 3rd
> party client then writes immediately after my ctime read.
> A reboot occurs (maybe minutes later), then I re-read the ctime, and
> get the same value as before the 3rd party write.
>
> Yes, most of the time that is better than the naked ctime, but not
> across a reboot.

This sort of "crash immediately after 3rd party data write" scenario
has never worked properly, even with i_version.

The issue is that 3rd party (local) buffered writes or metadata
changes do not require any integrity or metadata stability
operations to be performed by the filesystem unless O_[D]SYNC is set
on the fd, RWF_[D]SYNC is set on the IO, or f{data}sync() is
performed on the file.

Hence no local filesystem currently persists i_version or ctime
outside of operations with specific data integrity semantics.

nfsd based modifications have application specific persistence
requirements and that is triggered by the nfsd calling
->commit_metadata prior to returning the operation result to the
client. This is what persists i_version/timestamp changes that were
made during the nfsd operation - this persistence behaviour is not
driven by the local filesystem.

IOWs, this "change attribute failure" scenario is an existing
problem with the current i_version implementation. It has always
been flawed in this way but this didn't matter a decade ago because
it's only purpose (and user) was nfsd and that had the required
persistence semantics to hide these flaws within the application's
context.

Now that we are trying to expose i_version as a "generic change
attribute", these persistence flaws get exposed because local
filesystem operations do not have the same enforced persistence
semantics as the NFS server.

This is another reason I want i_version to die.

What we need is a clear set of well defined semantics around statx
change attribute sampling. Correct crash-recovery/integrity behaviour
requires this rule:

If the change attribute has been sampled, then the next
modification to the filesystem that bumps change attribute *must*
persist the change attribute modification atomically with the
modification that requires it to change, or submit and complete
persistence of the change attribute modification before the
modification that requires it starts.

e.g. a truncate can bump the change attribute atomically with the
metadata changes in a transaction-based filesystem (ext4, XFS,
btrfs, bcachefs, etc).

Data writes are much harder, though. Some filesysetm structures can
write data and metadata in a single update e.g. log structured or
COW filesystems that can mix data and metadata like btrfs.
Journalling filesystems require ordering between journal writes and
the data writes to guarantee the change attribute is persistent
before we write the data. Non-journalling filesystems require inode
vs data write ordering.

Hence I strongly doubt that a persistent change attribute is best
implemented at the VFS - optimal, efficient implementations are
highly filesystem specific regardless of how the change attribute is
encoded in filesysetm metadata.

This is another reason I want to change how the inode timestamp code
is structured to call into the filesystem first rather than last.
Different filesystems will need to do different things to persist
a "ctime change counter" attribute correctly and efficiently -
it's not a one-size fits all situation....

-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com