From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1CEC33CA1 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6CE20720 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578530646; bh=Go188rL5tikNt03I4uWv26oj+FUof0Vk+S7a6HlvT1A=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=XHfjpbUNTSZaGEP5l5JUaXNbRUPkKVzr6UZ5H8KVkaZP88koY1OXoghBEiCYuXcMv rd3g3Zfoj11YpWVDZaxH9jX+xiicvvePRPi/Tjs2H1XJF6pxG8Fv2dXpLZczrW77UU wpcj4SN6mXWMLZZ5G6PHUPB/B0oXPudW+9iY2pFM= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727168AbgAIAoC (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:44:02 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33382 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726654AbgAIAoC (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:44:02 -0500 Received: from tleilax.poochiereds.net (68-20-15-154.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net [68.20.15.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5ABD2070E; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578530642; bh=Go188rL5tikNt03I4uWv26oj+FUof0Vk+S7a6HlvT1A=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=wVjR5/sPmfzWsNjUYs7iAFkDuAiMFnOpPCjdP+oU0s+4tHE0RLgbXYKiXuSJulplY WZVBvVyNaV7D1gkAtlMQFENto0ov9x31m3PyRs1uW7fKs78RbYeEqMnDd0yifwYvyL QJQ799I/TfvKrDuKHFPYFjkL73uGZt3h28MFnhyU= Message-ID: <064b5f5318fd433f03242ed234fe7c370899e224.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tmpfs: Support 64-bit inums per-sb From: Jeff Layton To: Hugh Dickins , Chris Mason Cc: Dave Chinner , Amir Goldstein , Chris Down , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel , Kernel Team Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 19:43:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20200107001039.GM23195@dread.disaster.area> <20200107001643.GA485121@chrisdown.name> <20200107003944.GN23195@dread.disaster.area> <20200107210715.GQ23195@dread.disaster.area> <4E9DF932-C46C-4331-B88D-6928D63B8267@fb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 03:24 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Chris Mason wrote: > > On 7 Jan 2020, at 16:07, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > IOWs, there are *lots* of 64bit inode numbers out there on XFS > > > filesystems.... > > > > It's less likely in btrfs but +1 to all of Dave's comments. I'm happy > > to run a scan on machines in the fleet and see how many have 64 bit > > inodes (either buttery or x-y), but it's going to be a lot. > > Dave, Amir, Chris, many thanks for the info you've filled in - > and absolutely no need to run any scan on your fleet for this, > I think we can be confident that even if fb had some 15-year-old tool > in use on its fleet of 2GB-file filesystems, it would not be the one > to insist on a kernel revert of 64-bit tmpfs inos. > > The picture looks clear now: while ChrisD does need to hold on to his > config option and inode32/inode64 mount option patch, it is much better > left out of the kernel until (very unlikely) proved necessary. This approach seems like the best course to me. FWIW, at the time we capped this at 32-bits (2007), 64-bit machines were really just becoming widely available, and it was quite common to run 32-bit, non-LFS apps on a 64-bit kernel. Users were hitting spurious EOVERFLOW errors all over the place so this seemed like the best way to address it. The world has changed a lot since then though, and one would hope that almost everything these days is compiled with FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64. Fingers crossed! -- Jeff Layton