Re: [PATCH] writeback: guard against jiffies wraparound on inode->dirtied_when checks (try #2)

Andrew Morton
2009-04-01T01:10:22Z

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:50:18 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:20:31 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:03:59 -0400
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + * It's not sufficient to just do a time_after() check on
> > > + * dirtied_when. That assumes that dirtied_when will always
> > > + * change within a period of jiffies that encompasses half the
> > > + * machine word size (2^31 jiffies on 32-bit arch). That's not
> > > + * necessarily the case if an inode is being constantly
> > > + * redirtied. Since dirtied_when can never be in the future,
> > > + * we can assume that if it appears to be so then it is
> > > + * actually in the distant past.
> >
> > so this really is a 32-bit-only thing.
> >
> > I guess that isn't worth optimising for though.
> >
>
> Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to hit this on a 64-bit machine.
>
> > otoh, given that all three comparisons are the same:
> >
> > + time_after(inode->dirtied_when, *older_than_this) &&
> > + time_before_eq(inode->dirtied_when, jiffies))
> >
> > (although one is inverted (i think?)), it might end up nicer if this was all done
> > in a little helper function?
> >
> > That way we only need to comment what's going on at a single site, and
> > we could omit the additional test if !CONFIG_64BIT.
>
> Ok, that seems reasonable.
>
> At one point I had a macro similar to time_in_range(), but dropped it
> primarily because time_after_but_before_eq() wasn't easy on the eyes.
> Thoughts on better names?

I was thinking

bool inode_dirtied_after(...);

and just leave the innards using time_after() and time_before_eq()?