Re: [PATCH 86/87] fs: switch timespec64 fields in inode to discrete integers

Amir Goldstein <[email protected]> Fri, 29 Sep 2023 06:27:57 +0300
Newsgroups gmane.linux.file-systems.union,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel,gmane.linux.drivers.rdma,gmane.linux.serial,gmane.linux.usb.general,gmane.linux.kernel.autofs,gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs,gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.coda.general,gmane.linux.kernel.efi,gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4,gmane.linux.file-systems.f2fs,gmane.linux.uml.devel,gmane.linux.drivers.mtd,gmane.linux.nfs,gmane.comp.file-systems.nilfs.user,gmane.linux.file-systems.ntfs.devel,gmane.linux.hardware.karma.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general,gmane.linux.kernel.cifs,gmane.network.samba.internals,gmane.linux.kernel.bpf,gmane.linux.network,gmane.comp.security.apparmor,gmane.linux.kernel.lsm
Message-ID <CAOQ4uxjTpPPUa3VXW+DWKy72JABOZBCXD6pjNk-FhJZWnqvNPA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:19 PM Darrick J. Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:06:03PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 11:48 -0400, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023, at 07:05, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > This shaves 8 bytes off struct inode, according to pahole.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > FWIW, this is similar to the approach that Deepa suggested
> > > back in 2016:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > It was NaKed at the time because of the added complexity,
> > > though it would have been much easier to do it then,
> > > as we had to touch all the timespec references anyway.
> > >
> > > The approach still seems ok to me, but I'm not sure it's worth
> > > doing it now if we didn't do it then.
> > >
> >
> > I remember seeing those patches go by. I don't remember that change
> > being NaK'ed, but I wasn't paying close attention at the time
> >
> > Looking at it objectively now, I think it's worth it to recover 8 bytes
> > per inode and open a 4 byte hole that Amir can use to grow the
> > i_fsnotify_mask. We might even able to shave off another 12 bytes
> > eventually if we can move to a single 64-bit word per timestamp.
>
> I don't think you can, since btrfs timestamps utilize s64 seconds
> counting in both directions from the Unix epoch.  They also support ns
> resolution:
>
>         struct btrfs_timespec {
>                 __le64 sec;
>                 __le32 nsec;
>         } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>
> --D
>

Sure we can.
That's what btrfs_inode is for.
vfs inode also does not store i_otime (birth time) and there is even a
precedent of vfs/btrfs variable size mismatch:

        /* full 64 bit generation number, struct vfs_inode doesn't have a big
         * enough field for this.
         */
        u64 generation;

If we decide that vfs should use "bigtime", btrfs pre-historic
timestamps are not a show stopper.

Thanks,
Amir.