Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] xfs: don't bump the i_version on an atime update in xfs_vn_update_time

Trond Myklebust
2022-08-27T16:03:23Z

On Sat, 2022-08-27 at 08:46 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 09:14:30AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Sat, 2022-08-27 at 11:01 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 10:26 AM Amir Goldstein
> > > <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 12:49 AM Jeff Layton
> > > > <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > xfs will update the i_version when updating only the atime
> > > > > value, which
> > > > > is not desirable for any of the current consumers of
> > > > > i_version. Doing so
> > > > > leads to unnecessary cache invalidations on NFS and extra
> > > > > measurement
> > > > > activity in IMA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add a new XFS_ILOG_NOIVER flag, and use that to indicate that
> > > > > the
> > > > > transaction should not update the i_version. Set that value
> > > > > in
> > > > > xfs_vn_update_time if we're only updating the atime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> > > > > Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> > > > > Cc: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
> > > > > Cc: David Wysochanski <dwysocha@redhat.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_log_format.h  |  2 +-
> > > > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_trans_inode.c |  2 +-
> > > > >  fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c               | 11 +++++++++--
> > > > >  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave has NACK'ed this patch, but I'm sending it as a way to
> > > > > illustrate
> > > > > the problem. I still think this approach should at least fix
> > > > > the worst
> > > > > problems with atime updates being counted. We can look to
> > > > > carve out
> > > > > other "spurious" i_version updates as we identify them.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK, "spurious" is only inode blocks map changes due to
> > > > writeback
> > > > of dirty pages. Anybody know about other cases?
> > > >
> > > > Regarding inode blocks map changes, first of all, I don't think
> > > > that there is
> > > > any practical loss from invalidating NFS client cache on dirty
> > > > data writeback,
> > > > because NFS server should be serving cold data most of the
> > > > time.
> > > > If there are a few unneeded cache invalidations they would only
> > > > be temporary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Unless there is an issue with a writer NFS client that
> > > invalidates its
> > > own attribute
> > > caches on server data writeback?
> > >
> >
> > The client just looks at the file attributes (of which i_version is
> > but
> > one), and if certain attributes have changed (mtime, ctime,
> > i_version,
> > etc...) then it invalidates its cache.
> >
> > In the case of blocks map changes, could that mean a difference in
> > the
> > observable sparse regions of the file? If so, then a READ_PLUS
> > before
> > the change and a READ_PLUS after could give different results.
> > Since
> > that difference is observable by the client, I'd think we'd want to
> > bump
> > i_version for that anyway.
>
> How /is/ READ_PLUS supposed to detect sparse regions, anyway?  I know
> that's been the subject of recent debate.  At least as far as XFS is
> concerned, a file range can go from hole -> delayed allocation
> reservation -> unwritten extent -> (actual writeback) -> written
> extent.
> The dance became rather more complex when we added COW.  If any of
> that
> will make a difference for READ_PLUS, then yes, I think you'd want
> file
> writeback activities to bump iversion to cause client invalidations,
> like (I think) Dave said.
>
> The fs/iomap/ implementation of SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE reports data for
> written and delalloc extents; and an unwritten extent will report
> data
> for any pagecache it finds.
>

READ_PLUS should never return anything different than a read() system
call would return for any given area. The way it reports sparse regions
vs. data regions is purely an RPC formatting convenience.

The only point to note about NFS READ and READ_PLUS is that because the
client is forced to send multiple RPC calls if the user is trying to
read a region that is larger than the 'rsize' value, it is possible
that these READ/READ_PLUS calls may be processed out of order, and so
the result may end up looking different than if you had executed a
read() call for the full region directly on the server.
However each individual READ / READ_PLUS reply should look as if the
user had called read() on that rsize-sized section of the file.
> > >

--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com